Families of Forced Labor Victims Win Damages Suit Against Nippon Steel

South Korea's Supreme Court ruled that Japanese companies must pay compensation in a lawsuit filed by the families of victims of Japan's wartime forced labor mobilization. The court determined that the statute of limitations for civil damage claims in forced labor cases should be calculated from "the point when the impediment was resolved," not three years from when the victim became aware of the illegal act.

The Supreme Court's First Division (presided by Justice Ma Yong-ju) on Thursday upheld a lower court ruling ordering Nippon Steel (formerly Shin Nippon Steel) to pay 100 million won to the four children of Chung Hyung-pal, a deceased forced labor victim, partially ruling in favor of the plaintiffs.

Chung had claimed during his lifetime that he was forcibly mobilized to a steel mill in Iwate Prefecture, Japan, between 1940 and 1942. Based on his testimony, the bereaved family filed a lawsuit in April 2019 seeking approximately 200 million won from Nippon Steel.

The Japanese company argued it had no liability as the statute of limitations for forced labor compensation had expired. Civil damage claims typically expire three years from when the victim becomes aware of the illegal act, or ten years from when the illegal act was committed. However, if there are "objective reasons that made it impossible to resolve the impediment," the expiration period is calculated from when the impediment was resolved.

In 2012, the Supreme Court first recognized the right to claim compensation in a damages suit against Nippon Steel, overturning and remanding the lower court ruling. Subsequently, a 2018 en banc ruling confirmed that Japanese companies bear liability for compensation. Following that ruling, families of forced labor victims including Chung's bereaved family filed compensation lawsuits against Japanese companies.

The first trial in September 2019 ruled against the plaintiffs, stating the right to claim damages had expired. However, the second trial in August last year reversed this decision and partially ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. The appellate court determined that October 2018, when the Supreme Court's en banc ruling was issued, should be considered the point when "the impediment was resolved."