Case Summary
In 2025, the Tokyo High Court heard an appeal (Reiwa 7 (Ne) 253) filed by Nippon Steel Corporation against a lower court ruling that ordered the company to pay damages to Korean plaintiffs who were subjected to forced labor during Japan's colonial rule. The plaintiffs, survivors and families of deceased workers, sought compensation for unpaid wages and human rights abuses. The case is part of a series of lawsuits stemming from the 2018 South Korean Supreme Court decisions that recognized individual rights to claim damages. Japan maintains that all claims were settled by the 1965 Treaty on Basic Relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea. The appeal focused on whether individual claims were extinguished by the treaty and whether Japanese courts have jurisdiction to re-examine such historical issues.


Status or Result
The Tokyo High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the lower court's decision, ordering Nippon Steel to pay approximately 100 million yen in total to the plaintiffs. The court reasoned that the 1965 agreement did not extinguish individual rights to claim damages for inhumane treatment, aligning with evolving international human rights norms.


Key Disputes
The central dispute was whether individual victims' rights to seek compensation for forced labor were waived by the 1965 Japan-Korea Claims Settlement Agreement, and whether Japanese courts must apply the principle of state immunity or international comity to bar the claims. Additionally, the interpretation of “final and conclusive” settlement of claims and the extraterritorial application of South Korean court rulings were contested.


Social Impact
The ruling further strained Japan-South Korea relations, sparking diplomatic protests from the Japanese government and reigniting public debate over colonial-era grievances. It prompted calls for a renewed bilateral fund to resolve such cases, while some feared asset seizures of Japanese companies in Korea could escalate. The decision was also cited in similar lawsuits pending in other jurisdictions.


Adapted Novels (1)
Published at Jun 9, 2026, 0 comments
    Case Comments (0)

    No comments yet. Be the first to comment!

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked * *