[ad_1]
Refrain from collecting assets that will come into effect from midnight on the 10th
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries “Settled by Japan-Korea Claims Settlement”
Respond to the Supreme Court’s decision by submitting a written opinion for the first time in two years
Members of the “Citizens Association with the Working Body Corps Harumoni (Grandmother)” shout the slogan of apology and compensation from the Japanese government and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries / Union News Material Photo
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, which has not complied with the mandatory mobilization victim compensation judgment, announced that it will “present a written opinion (to the court)” on the fact that the Korean court has proceeded with the procedure for delivering public notices on the collection. In November 2018, the official response was shown for the first time two years after the final decision of the Supreme Court of Korea (Grand Court).
According to NHK’s report on the 10th, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries said: “The issue of claims between Japan and South Korea and their citizens has been” completely and finally resolved “by the Japan-Korea Claims Agreement, and cannot make any claims. “I understand that,” he said. “We plan to submit a written opinion to the investigation, taking into account the current state of exchanges between governments.”
The victims of forced mobilization and the five grieving families filed a lawsuit for damages against Mitsubishi Heavy Industries in October 2012, and in November 2018, the Korean Supreme Court ruled that they would win. As Mitsubishi Heavy Industries did not implement the ruling, the victims and grieving families filed a petition with the Daejeon District Court to seize the company’s assets in South Korea. In response to this, the Daejeon District Court publicly handed over an investigation to Mitsubishi Heavy Industries to handle the foreclosure case, and the effect took effect as of midnight on the 10th, two months later. The delivery of public notices is a system in which if the litigant does not accept the documents necessary for the trial, the contents are considered to have been communicated after being published on the notice board or official court bulletin. However, the submission of the written opinion does not mean that delivery of the public notice will be suspended, and the background to the submission of the written opinion by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and its impact on the claim cannot be understood at this time.
Prior to this, in August this year, another perpetrator, Nippon Steel (formerly Nippon Steel & Sumitomo Metal), who failed to implement the Supreme Court’s compensation decision, filed an immediate appeal against the court’s asset forfeiture order. Korean.
Reporter Kim So Young (Inquiries [email protected])
HJ translation
[ad_2]
