<Anchor>
The issue of
compensation for victims of forced mobilization arose in 2018 when the Korean Supreme Court affirmed the judgment recognizing the right of victims of forced mobilization to claim alimony. Even after the Supreme Court's decision, Japan claimed that the Japan-Korea Claims Agreement had completely and finally settled the claims issue, and no compensation was made to war criminals. The final solution of our government, which came out of this process, is to leave out the Japanese defendant companies and compensate them with our own money. As a result, some victims said they could not agree and threatened further lawsuits.

Reporter Ha Jung-yeon reports.

<Reporter>

[Waiting for years to go, Mitsubishi immediately implement the Supreme Court ruling! Implement! Implement!]

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries rejected the Supreme Court's 2018 ruling on compensation.

As a result of further lawsuits by the victims, Mitsubishi was ordered by a court to sell its domestic trademark and patent rights and pay compensation.

We are again awaiting the Supreme Court's decision.

In addition, there are a total of nine forced mobilization lawsuits currently pending before the Supreme Court.

About 9 cases are pending in the courts of first and second instance.

The government has formalized a plan for a third-party foundation to repay the debts of Japanese companies on their behalf, but if even one person does not agree to the government's solution, legal proceedings such as forced sale of assets will have to continue.

This is because the government maintains that third-party reimbursement is legally unproblematic, while victims' representatives argue that proxy reimbursement is not possible without the consent of the victims.

There is a good chance that another legal battle will erupt in the process.

This is a case where the foundation unilaterally entrusts the compensation owed by the war crime company to the court, that is, makes a deposit.

A senior official of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs said, "We understand that collusion is possible if the victims do not receive the judgment until the end," and the victims' side announced a lawsuit for annulment of the deposit.

[Legal Representative for Victims of Forced Mobilization: If the Foundation unilaterally makes a deposit against the will of the victims, we will proceed with the procedure to confirm the invalidity of the deposit in the enforcement proceedings.]

In this case, it is pointed out that in the issue of compensations for forced mobilization, Japanese war crime companies may fall into the spotlight and escalate into a litigation battle between us.

(Video Interview: Lee Yong-han and Yang Ji-hoon, Video Editing: Kim Jin-won, CG: Son Hoseok)