1. Overview of the case

The widow (born in 1921) was forcibly mobilized to Japan in 1943, suffered paralysis of her left leg, returned to North Korea in 1945, and died in 1954.

The plaintiff (born 1924, brother of the deceased), who was in South Korea during the Korean War, heard the above facts from his sister in North Korea, whom he met at a family reunion in 2003. In 2009, the Commission for the Clarification of Victims of Forced Labor under the Japanese Occupation replied to the Minister of the Interior and Local Government that it had determined that the deceased was a victim of forced labor under the Japanese occupation.

The plaintiff then applied for compensation from the Committee for Victims of Forced Labor in the Pacific War.

The Committee for the Investigation of Victims of Forced Mobilization and Support for Victims of Forced Mobilization Abroad (hereinafter referred to as the Committee, and the Supreme Court referred to the defendant as the Minister of Public Administration and Self-Government), which succeeded the above Committee, issued a decision to the plaintiff in 2010 pursuant to the 'Special Act on the Investigation of Victims of Forced Mobilization and Support for Victims of Forced Mobilization Abroad' (hereinafter referred to as the 'Forced Mobilization Investigation Act'), stating that "the deceased was forcibly mobilized by the Japanese in 1943, However, the court dismissed the plaintiff's application for compensation on the grounds that "the deceased is a person who does not possess the nationality of the Republic of Korea under Article 7(4) of the Act because he has his family register in North Korea" (hereinafter referred to as the "Disposition of the Case").

2. Summary of the judgment of the first and second instance

As to whether the deceased has the nationality of the Republic of Korea, the first court held that the deceased acquired the nationality of the Republic of Korea under the provisions of the Temporary Ordinance on Nationality No. 11 (hereinafter referred to as the "Temporary Ordinance") of the Government of the Provinces of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (hereinafter referred to as the "Provisional Ordinance") by being born to Korean parents at the time of the 1948 Constitution, and acquired the nationality of the Republic of Korea upon the promulgation of the Constitution.

Even if the deceased had acquired North Korean nationality under the provisions of North Korean law, this circumstance could have no effect on the deceased's acquisition and retention of South Korean nationality, as North Korea is part of the Korean Peninsula, which belongs to the territory of the Republic of Korea, and the sovereignty of the Republic of Korea is only affected by the sovereignty of the Republic of Korea, and no state entity or sovereignty that conflicts with the sovereignty of the Republic of Korea can be recognized as a matter of law.

3. The gist of the decision

The Supreme Court held that the Forced Mobilization Investigation Act is related to the 1965 Agreement on the Settlement of Issues Concerning Property and Claims and Economic Cooperation between the Republic of Korea and the State of Japan, and that the legislator is granted freedom of legislative formation when determining the legislative intent and history of the Forced Mobilization Investigation Act, the specific targets and contents of the support, such as comfort payments, the fact that the Act is intended to provide comfort payments on a humanitarian basis and not to compensate for damages, and the scope and targets of the support.

In addition, considering that the subjects of compensation under the Forced Mobilization Investigation Act do not necessarily correspond to the subjects covered by the Agreement, the territorial provisions of the Constitution, the fact that the Act does not explicitly exclude North Koreans from the scope of the compensation, and the fact that there is no reason to narrow the scope of the Act in light of its legislative purpose, the trial court's judgment that North Koreans are not among the "persons who do not have the nationality of the Republic of Korea" excluded from the compensation under the Forced Mobilization Investigation Act was correct and the defendant's appeal was dismissed.

4. Significance of the ruling

The ruling stipulated that the Constitution establishes the requirements for becoming a citizen of the Republic of Korea by law in Article 3, and Article 100 stipulates that the current laws and regulations shall be effective as long as they do not violate the Constitution.

The deceased is said to have acquired the nationality of the Republic of Korea at the same time as the promulgation of the Constitution, and Article 2 of the Nationality Act of December 1948 stipulates that a person whose father was a citizen of the Republic of Korea at the time of his birth shall acquire the nationality of the Republic of Korea by birth, Article 3 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea stipulates that the territory of the Republic of Korea shall be the Korean Peninsula and its attached islands, and since the Constitution of the Republic of Korea is in effect for the entire Korean Peninsula, including the North Korean region, the North Korean region naturally becomes the territory of the Republic of Korea, and considering these factors, it is significant that the court confirmed that North Koreans who acquired North Korean citizenship are generally included in the citizens of the Republic of Korea and are eligible for compensation under the Forced Mobilization Investigation Act.

We believe that the ruling is in line with the legislative purpose of the Act, the history of its enactment, the territorial provisions of the Constitution, the constitutional spirit of justice and equity and peaceful reunification, and the mission of social integration of North and South Korea through the promotion of inter-Korean exchange and cooperation.