A Seoul court has ordered a Japanese company to pay 80 million Korean won in damages to the family of a woman who was forcibly mobilized as a child laborer during Japan’s colonial rule of Korea. The ruling by the Seoul Central District Court’s Civil Appeals Court 11-2 Division (Presiding Judge Kwak Hyung-seop, with Judges Jeon Seo-young and Yang Hyung-kwon), which upheld a lower court’s decision, Korean Center reported.
A 12-Year-Old Forcibly Mobilized, a Court Upholds Her Claim
The case centers on the late Ms. Seo, who was just 12 years old when she was forcibly mobilized by the Japanese machinery tool and parts company, Fujikoshi, from March to August 1945. She worked as a member of the Joseon Women’s Volunteer Labor Corps, producing aircraft parts. Ms. Seo filed a damages lawsuit in 2020 but passed away in May 2024 before the first verdict was reached, with her children continuing the legal battle.
Fujikoshi had contested the case on two main grounds: it argued that South Korean courts lacked jurisdiction and that Ms. Seo’s damages claim was extinguished by the 1965 agreement between Japan and South Korea on claims. The first-instance court rejected both arguments in November 2024. It ruled that although Fujikoshi is a Japanese corporation, Ms. Seo based her tort liability claim on South Korean civil law, and the case is closely tied to Korea’s history and political shifts, so Korean courts had jurisdiction. It also cited a 2018 Supreme Court en banc ruling that the 1965 claims agreement does not limit claims arising from illegal acts such as forced mobilization, thereby recognizing Ms. Seo’s claim.
The court’s ruling was stark in its assessment of the historical facts. “The deceased, at a young age, was made to work without properly knowing the specific details of the labor environment she would face in Japan, the specific content of the labor she would perform, or the treatment she would receive, having been deceived into joining the labor corps by the organized deception of the Japanese government and Fujikoshi,” the first-instance judgment stated. It concluded that Fujikoshi “significantly repressed the deceased’s freedom and made her perform forced labor, which constitutes an inhumane illegal act directly linked to the Japanese government’s illegal colonial rule over the Korean Peninsula and the Korean people and its conduct of a war of invasion.”
The Dispute Over a Post-War Agreement
The 1965 agreement between the two countries has been a central point of contention in the case. Fujikoshi argued that Ms. Seo’s right to damages was extinguished by the 1965 agreement, but the first-instance court rejected this, citing the 2018 Supreme Court en banc ruling that the agreement does not limit claims arising from illegal acts such as forced mobilization.
The second-instance court, to which Fujikoshi appealed, upheld the first verdict. “Reviewing again the evidence submitted in the first and second trials, the first instance’s finding of facts and judgment are justified,” the appeals panel stated.
The Ruling
The ruling leaves Fujikoshi obligated to pay 80 million won to Ms. Seo’s side. The company had maintained throughout the litigation that Korean courts lacked jurisdiction over the case and that the 1965 agreement extinguished the damages claim — arguments the courts rejected at both instances.
| Key Events in the Legal Battle | Outcome |
|---|---|
| 1945: Forced mobilization | Ms. Seo, aged 12, is mobilized to Fujikoshi from March to August, working in the Joseon Women’s Volunteer Labor Corps making aircraft parts. |
| 2018: South Korean Supreme Court en banc ruling | Found the 1965 claims agreement does not limit claims arising from illegal acts such as forced mobilization. |
| 2020: Lawsuit filed | Ms. Seo files a damages claim against Fujikoshi. |
| 2024 (November): First ruling in the Fujikoshi case | Seoul court rules for the plaintiff, rejecting the company’s jurisdiction and agreement-based defenses. |
| 2024 (May): Ms. Seo dies | Her children continue the lawsuit. |
Courts Reject Jurisdiction Claims
The courts found that Fujikoshi’s conduct constituted an inhumane illegal act connected to Japan’s colonial rule and war of invasion. With the appeals court having upheld the first-instance judgment in favor of the plaintiff, the ruling stands as the latest judicial rejection of the arguments that Korean courts lack jurisdiction and that the 1965 agreement extinguished the victims’ claims.
