Mitsubishi forced mobilization problem, how was only the ‘compensation’ without ‘apology’ left?

Can delayed justice be realized this time? The forced sale of domestic assets by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries & Construction in Japan will be possible from 0:00 on the 30th. The court can sell two domestic trademark rights and six Mitsubishi Heavy Industries patent rights that have been seized. It is worth about 840 million won. The lawsuit brought by Yang Geum-deok, a victim of forced labor caused by Japanese imperialism, and four others is headed for the end in eight years.

But the situation is not as simple as it seems. The possibility and the realization of a sell order are different. There are still more procedural steps to legally follow for the actual sale. There is also an essential problem. The question is whether the forced sale of the Mitsubishi property is a real apology to the victims. Some experts worry that forced sale is a luxury for companies.

Civic groups are also deeply concerned. Lee Guk-eon, executive director of the ‘Meeting of citizens with grandmothers of the School of Labor Education’, which supports the victims’ litigation, said: “Emotionally, it would be good to sell it by force, but it is not easy.” The issue of forced mobilization that seems to end like this has plagued the victims for 75 years. The “real apology” from Japan that the victims want is also moving away. Rather, Japan is in a position where the Korean government should propose an alternative. Why is the alternative situation worse?

■ “All you want is a genuine apology”

Japan brought Korean workers to Japan through the “Compulsory Military Service Decree” enacted in 1944 and forced them to work. Yang Geum-deok’s grandmother and four other people worked forcibly at the former Mitsubishi Heavy Industries aircraft factory in Nagoya. They filed a lawsuit against Mitsubishi on October 24, 2012 in the Gwangju District Court. Yang Geum-deok revealed the reason for the lawsuit, saying, “The first apology, the second apology.” The lawsuit that reached the Supreme Court was finalized on November 29, 2018, stating, “Pay alimony of 100 million to 150 million won per person to the victims.”

Two years have passed since then, but Mitsubishi did not pay alimony. He did not respond to the victim’s request for negotiation to receive facts and an apology. The victims’ grandmother, Dong-ryun Lee, who had been involved in the lawsuit, and Kim Jung-gon, who participated in the lawsuit on behalf of her younger sister, died. The remaining victims, Yang Geum-deok, Park Hae-ok and Kim Seong-ju, are in their 90s. Finally, in March of last year, the victims requested the seizure of Mitsubishi’s domestic property and began the execution procedure. Representative Lee said: “In order to comply with the ruling and receive an apology, it was unavoidable to apply for compulsory execution.”

Forcible execution begins with the victim’s request for a seizure order. If the court accepts this, the victim can apply for a sale order. The actual sale order is decided by the court through questioning. Mitsubishi did not participate in all these processes. In the end, the court publicly released the examination documents related to the seizure order and the sale order. In this way, if the other party to the claim refuses to comply with the judgment, it is considered fulfilled by publishing the contents on the notice board or official court bulletin. This process will be completed at 00:00 hours on the 30th.

However, it may take longer to sell. “It is the discretion of the court to decide when to issue a sale order,” said Jeong Ji-woong, a lawyer for a law firm. Even if the appeal is dismissed or dismissed, the appeal can be appealed again. “Jieum Kim Jeong-hee, a lawyer representing the victim, said,” If you do not agree with the sales order, you can take the time to want. “To hear Mitsubishi’s position on this, I contacted the law firm representing the company, but got no response.

Older victims do not have enough time to wait for this entire process. Finally, the political role of the state became necessary.

■ The government’s response to highlight only the money problem

President Moon Jae-in, who faced the Supreme Court ruling on the issue of forced mobilization, said: “We will respect the judgment of the judiciary and seek a victim-centered solution.” The president’s willingness to “ respect the judgment of the judiciary ” has set a new standard for resolving claims. It is not ‘diplomacy’, but the decision of the ‘Korean judiciary’. The question is whether domestic trials are justified in the international community. In other words, we need a way to get Japan to comply with the Korean court’s decision. However, the government has not yet found a clear solution for this.

Given the premise of the judiciary ruling, the ‘victim-centered solution’ also became quite a ‘money’ problem. Former legislator Chang-il Kang, who has been appointed the new ambassador to Japan, revealed how to avoid the forced sale of Japanese corporate assets. He spoke of ‘a plan for the Korean government to take over the victims’ bonds and avoid turning them into cash’ or ‘subrogation’ in which mainly Korean companies that benefited from the Korea-Japan Claims Agreement in 1965 were compensated. and then they acquired the right to indemnify.

The Japanese media also revealed that the Korean government has suggested that “if the Japanese companies reimburse them, they will preserve them in full.” In this regard, an official from the Blue House said: “I cannot confirm it.” As the focus of the sentence was compensation, there was no “apology” in the solution, only “money” remained.

Professor Park Jeong-jin of Japan’s Tsuda-juku University said: “This is essentially a diplomatic problem because the target of law enforcement is a foreign private company. In a situation where the judiciary cannot do diplomacy, the government must take a realistic response to resolve disputes between countries. ” said. “The ‘victim focus’ of the Korean government is impressive domestically, but it can be a diplomatic vacuum,” he said. “To change the Japanese perception of history, a complex and long-term strategy is needed instead of judicial principles.”

In the end, it is not easy to solve the problem of forced mobilization with an approach based solely on the decision of the Supreme Court.

■ When the government needs a helping role

As time passes, it is the victims who are injured. Representative Lee said, “The lawsuit by the victims of forced mobilization is a historical matter, not a private lawsuit for money,” he said. “The compassionate attitude of the government about whether it is better to get money quickly pains me.” He said: “We have not received any help from the government in the case of the lawsuit, nor have we discussed any practical alternatives since then,” he said. “It should be understood that the method of receiving compensation only without acknowledging facts and apologies is that our government recognizes Japan’s deterrence.”

The situation is difficult, but it is not without a solution. It is proposed to create an environment in which both victims and experts can autonomously negotiate with companies. In reality, Mitsubishi’s side was not passive in solving the problem from the beginning. Mitsubishi negotiated 16 times with the victims between 2010 and 2012 before a lawsuit was filed in Korea. This atmosphere has changed with the introduction of a conservative government headed by Prime Minister Abe in Japan. The victims’ litigation was also a response for Mitsubishi to return to negotiations.

Lawyer Bong-Tae Choi, Chairman of the Special Committee on Human Rights for Japanese Victims of the Korea Bar Association, said: “The government should play a role in helping companies and victims to resolve problems autonomously, rather than a solution that only requires money. ” “You have to make a political effort.” Rep. Lee also said, “I hope the government acts as a shield so that the victim and the perpetrator can sit face to face.”