Open Decision Ledger · Civil obligations & remedies
Limitation obstacles for forced-labour claims until the 2018 en banc decision
Supreme Court, Jan. 25, 2024, 2019Da3226 (judgment)
No holding summary · checked against points at issue. The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Case name: 손해배상
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Until what date did forced-labour victims or their heirs have an objective factual obstacle that prevented them from exercising their damages claim against a Japanese company, so that the company could not assert the expiry of the limitation period in bar of the claim?
Holding
Until the Supreme Court en banc decision of 30 October 2018 (2013Da61381), which stated finally and clearly that a forced-labour victim's damages claim against a Japanese company falls outside the Korea-Japan Claims Agreement, the victims or their heirs had an objective factual obstacle to exercising the claim. A defendant who asserts the expiry of the limitation period in reliance on that period is thereby exercising a right contrary to the principle of good faith and is not permitted to do so. The Supreme Court therefore dismissed all the defendant's appeals and placed the costs of appeal on the defendant.
Points at issue, verbatim
강제동원 피해자의 일본 기업에 대한 위자료청구권은 ‘대한민국과 일본국 간의 재산 및 청구권에 관한 문제의 해결과 경제협력에 관한 협정’의 적용 대상에 포함되지 않는다는 법적 견해를 최종적으로 명확하게 밝힌 대법원 2018. 10. 30. 선고 2013다61381 전원합의체 판결이 선고될 때까지는 강제동원 피해자 또는 그 상속인들에게는 객관적으로 권리를 사실상 행사할 수 없는 장애사유가 있었다고 봄이 타당하다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
A case where it was held reasonable to find that the victims of forced mobilization or their heirs were objectively under an impediment that in fact prevented them from exercising their rights until the Supreme Court en banc judgment 2013Da61381 decided October 30, 2018, which finally and clearly stated the legal view that the victims of forced mobilization's claims against Japanese companies for solatium are not included in the scope of application of the "Agreement Between Japan and the Republic of Korea Concerning the Settlement of Problems in Regard to Property and Claims and the Economic Cooperation," was rendered
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고를 모두 기각한다. 상고비용은 피고가 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
All appeals are dismissed. The appeal costs shall be borne by the defendant.
Form of the test
Circumstances weighed Stated in the decision
이러한 사정을 모두 고려한다면 강제동원 피해자들 또는 그 상속인들인 원고들에게는
Unofficial English translation
Taking all such circumstances into consideration, for the plaintiffs, who are victims of forced mobilization or their heirs,
Factors
- 채권자에게 권리의 행사를 기대할 수 없는 객관적인 사실상의 장애사유가 있었으나
- 대법원이 채권자의 권리행사가 가능하다는 법률적 판단을 내린 경우
- 강제동원 피해자의 일본 기업에 대한 위자료청구권은 ‘대한민국과 일본국 간의 재산 및 청구권에 관한 문제의 해결과 경제협력에 관한 협정’의 적용 대상에 포함되지 않는다는 법적 견해를 최종적으로 명확하게 밝힌 대법원 2018. 10. 30. 선고 2013다61381 전원합의체 판결이 선고될 때까지는
- 강제동원 피해자 또는 그 상속인들에게는 객관적으로 권리를 사실상 행사할 수 없는 장애사유가 있었다고 봄이 타당하다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
• Where there existed an objective de facto impediment for which the creditor could not be expected to exercise the right,
• where the Supreme Court rendered a legal determination that the creditor's exercise of the right was possible,
• until the Supreme Court en banc judgment 2013Da61381 decided October 30, 2018, which finally and clearly stated the legal view that the victims of forced mobilization's claims against Japanese companies for solatium are not included in the scope of application of the "Agreement Between Japan and the Republic of Korea Concerning the Settlement of Problems in Regard to Property and Claims and the Economic Cooperation," was rendered,
• it was held reasonable to find that the victims of forced mobilization or their heirs were objectively under an impediment that in fact prevented them from exercising their rights
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2023. 12. 21. 선고 2018다303653 판결(공2024상, 204)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2018Da303653 decided December 21, 2023 (Gong 2024 Sang, 204)
Decisions referred to
[1][2] 대법원 2023. 12. 21. 선고 2018다303653 판결(공2024상, 204) / [1] 대법원 2011. 9. 8. 선고 2009다66969 판결(공2011하, 2046)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
How long after the en banc judgment of 30 October 2018 must a victim or an heir sue before the limitation defence is no longer barred by the principle of good faith?
A later Supreme Court decision reconsidering the holding of 30 October 2018 (2013Da61381), or deciding how long a reasonable period is after that judgment, would require this entry to be read again. So would a statutory change to Article 166(1) or Article 766 of the Civil Act on the running of limitation.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-25
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 7 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 4 (form of the test).
Axis 4 (Form of the test): Primary “Circumstances weighed” vs Independent “Existing test applied”
The primary reading treats the ruling as a comprehensive multi-factor assessment, while the independent reading treats it as applying a settled point in time to the facts. Both reach the same date and dismissal.
대법원 2018. 10. 30. 선고 2013다61381 전원합의체 판결이 선고될 때까지는 강제동원 피해자 또는 그 상속인들에게는 객관적으로 권리를 사실상 행사할 수 없는 장애사유가 있었다고 봄이 타당하다고 한 사례Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Seoul High Court, in its judgment of 18 January 2019 (2014Na58797), held that the Japanese judgment could not be recognised in Korea, because it rests on the normative premise that Japan's colonial rule of the Korean peninsula was lawful and that the National Mobilisation Law, the National Conscription Ordinance and the Women's Volunteer Labour Ordinance validly applied to the plaintiffs. It found that the plaintiffs had been induced or conscripted into the labour corps by deception, persuasion and coercion, had worked in constant danger without pay under restricted movement and surveillance, and held that the claims fell outside the Korea-Japan Claims Agreement. It further held that until the suit was filed around 14 February 2013 the plaintiffs had an obstacle to exercising their claims, or had sued within a reasonable time after it was removed, so the defendant's limitation defence was an abuse of rights.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found no error. It held that the court below followed Supreme Court Decision 2013Da61381 and did not misstate the law on recognition of a foreign judgment or on the scope and effect of the Claims Agreement, nor did it admit facts without evidence. On limitation, it added that where the Supreme Court has ruled that a claim may be exercised, the obstacle is in principle treated as removed from that point, yet the dispute continued after the 2012 decisions, the Japanese government and Japanese companies refused to pay, and the 2012 decisions were not final in a way that guaranteed the victims relief, so the obstacle lasted until the 2018 en banc judgment. It noted that some passages of the reasoning below were not apt, but the conclusion rejecting the limitation defence stands, and all the defendant's appeals were dismissed by the unanimous opinion of the participating Justices.
Distinguishing conditions
- A claim whose limitation ran from a date after the en banc judgment of 30 October 2018, when the Court held that the obstacle had in principle been removed.
- A claimant who obtained a definitive recognition of the right in their own earlier proceedings, so that the special circumstances the Court relied on are absent.
- A defendant whose limitation defence does not rest on the bar of an obstacle, since the decision addresses only that defence.
Record verification notes
Set out the dates in sequence: the 2012 decisions, the en banc judgment of 30 October 2018 and the filing date of the claim, and check whether the claim accrued before or after the en banc judgment. Then gather what shows that the claimant could not practically obtain relief in Japan, since the Court relied on the continued dispute, the refusal to pay and the non-final nature of the 2012 decisions. Note also whether the recognition of the foreign judgment in the file engages the good-fundamentals-of-social-order objection, which the court below found made out.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 객관적으로 채권자가 권리를 행사할 수 없는 장애사유가 있었던 경우, 채무자가 소멸시효 완성을 주장하는 것이 신의성실의 원칙에 반하는 권리남용에 해당하는지 여부(적극) [2] 채권자에게 권리의 행사를 기대할 수 없는 객관적인 사실상의 장애사유가 있었으나 대법원이 채권자의 권리행사가 가능하다는 법률적 판단을 내린 경우, 그 시점 이후에는 장애사유가 해소되었다고 볼 수 있는지 여부(원칙적 적극) [3] 일제강점기에 강제동원되어 후지코시 주식회사가 운영하는 공장에서 강제노동에 종사한 갑 등이 위 회사를 상대로 위자료 지급을 구한 사안에서, 강제동원 피해자의 일본 기업에 대한 위자료청구권은 ‘대한민국과 일본국 간의 재산 및 청구권에 관한 문제의 해결과 경제협력에 관한 협정’의 적용 대상에 포함되지 않는다는 법적 견해를 최종적으로 명확하게 밝힌 대법원 2018. 10. 30. 선고 2013다61381 전원합의체 판결이 선고될 때까지는 강제동원 피해자 또는 그 상속인들에게는 객관적으로 권리를 사실상 행사할 수 없는 장애사유가 있었다고 봄이 타당하다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
[1] Whether, where there existed an objective impediment preventing the creditor from exercising the right, the debtor's assertion of the completion of extinctive prescription constitutes an abuse of rights contrary to the principle of good faith (affirmative) [2] Where there existed an objective de facto impediment for which the creditor could not be expected to exercise the right, but the Supreme Court rendered a legal determination that the creditor's exercise of the right was possible, whether the impediment may be regarded as having been removed as of that time (in principle, affirmative) [3] A case where, in a matter in which A and others, who were forcibly mobilized during the Japanese colonial period and engaged in forced labor at a factory operated by Fujikoshi Co., Ltd., sought payment of solatium from that company, it was held reasonable to find that the victims of forced mobilization or their heirs were objectively under an impediment that in fact prevented them from exercising their rights until the Supreme Court en banc judgment 2013Da61381 decided October 30, 2018, which finally and clearly stated the legal view that the victims of forced mobilization's claims against Japanese companies for solatium are not included in the scope of application of the "Agreement Between Japan and the Republic of Korea Concerning the Settlement of Problems in Regard to Property and Claims and the Economic Cooperation," was rendered
Summary of the holding
The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Order
상고를 모두 기각한다. 상고비용은 피고가 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
All appeals are dismissed. The appeal costs shall be borne by the defendant.
Provisions referred to
[1] 민법 제2조, 제162조, 제166조 제1항, 제766조 [2] 민법 제166조 제1항 [3] 민법 제2조, 제166조 제1항, 제751조, 제766조
Read 2026-10-25 · Cross-read 2026-10-25. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger