A Treaty Cannot Silence the Victims: Korea’s Supreme Court Rules on Wartime Forced Labor Claims

By Juwon Kang, April 21, 2026

South Korea’s Supreme Court has confirmed that the 1965 Korea-Japan Claims Agreement does not bar individual victims of Japanese wartime forced labor from pursuing damages in court. Here are the key points:

—

The Background

– During Japan’s colonial rule of Korea, victims like plaintiff Kang and others were forcibly mobilized to work in coal mines and other harsh conditions by Japanese companies including Mitsubishi Heavy Industries.
– The plaintiffs — survivors and bereaved family members — each sought ₩100 million in damages for forced labor, unpaid wages, and emotional suffering.

The Legal Journey

– The trial court (1st instance) dismissed the case outright, reasoning that while the 1965 Korea-Japan Claims Agreement did not outright extinguish individual claims, it effectively barred their enforcement through litigation.
– The appellate court reversed that decision, finding that the Claims Agreement could not reasonably be interpreted to cover compensation claims arising from forced wartime mobilization. It drew a key distinction: a government waiving its right to diplomatic protection is a separate matter from extinguishing the individual legal rights of its citizens.
– The Supreme Court (Civil Division 1, presiding Justice Noh Tae-ak) upheld the appellate ruling on February 12, 2026, rejecting all appeals by the defendant Japanese companies.

What the Supreme Court Said

– The Court found no legal error in the appellate court’s analysis of international jurisdiction, treaty interpretation, or the scope and effect of the Claims Agreement.
– The case is now remanded back to the trial court for a full hearing on the merits — meaning the substance of the victims’ claims will finally be examined.



Why This Matters

This ruling reaffirms a principle the Korean Supreme Court has been developing: that crimes against humanity committed during colonial rule — particularly forced labor — fall outside the scope of what the 1965 treaty was designed to settle. For practitioners, the case highlights the distinction between state-level diplomatic agreements and the individual rights of citizens, a line courts are increasingly reluctant to blur when fundamental human rights are at stake.

Article: https://www.lawtimes.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=218272