Ref.>"韓国人「西遊記の作者は韓国人」"
>"「朝鮮人虐殺を認めろ」 追悼文不送付で学生デモ"
>"韓国紙「関東大震災の朝鮮人虐殺、鳩山元首相ら日本の主要人物も批判」"
>"「逃げ回る姿、恥ずかしい」朝鮮人追悼文不送付で小池都知事に抗議 → 立憲議員「その通り！個別に追悼文を送るべき！」"
-----------------------------------------
> 講師：小此木政夫 慶應義塾大学名誉教授／テーマ：「日韓基本条約締結の経緯」【第16回まなびと夜間塾】（2020.10.23）
Translation; The counterpart of former forced conscripted workers is Japanese companies = the Seoul Central District Court dismissed compensation claim against Seoul
>"韓国政府への賠償請求棄却 元徴用工、相手は日本企業"
> ソウル中央地裁は 28日、1965年の日韓請求権協定に基づく日本の拠出資金で個人補償が十分行われなかったのは不当だとして、元徴用工遺族らが韓国政府に賠償を求めた２件の訴訟について、請求をいずれも棄却。
> 元徴用工らの個人請求権は同協定で消滅していないとした韓国最高裁の確定判決を踏まえ、徴用するなどした日本企業への請求が妥当だと判断した。
Concerning two lawsuits filed by the bereaved families members of former conscripted workers seeking compensation from Seoul, saying that it's unfair that individual compensation wasn't done sufficiently based on Japan's contributions under the 1965 Japan-S. Korea claims rights agreement, on Aug. 28, the Seoul Central Dicsrict Court dismissed the both cases.
Taking the finalized sentences handed down by the Supreme Court of Korea, saying that invididual clam rights of former conscripted workers wasn't covered by the agreement, it ruled that it's appropriate to bring claims against Japanese companies that conscripted, etc.
> 地裁は「不法な植民地支配に直結した日本企業の不法行為」に対する請求権は協定の適用対象外とした 2018年の最高裁判決にも言及。
> 今回の訴訟は請求権の喪失を前提としているとして「（韓国の）最終的な法的見解と異なり、酌むべき事情がない」と指摘した。
The District Court commented on the Supreme Court of Korea verdict in 2018, which ruled that claim rights against "(* not) unlawful acts by Japanese companies which directly connected with (* not) unlawful annexation (* not colonial) rule" wasn't covered by the agreement.
The lawsuits this time was based on premise that claim rights vanished, and pointed out that "It's different from finalized legal view (of S. Korea), there are therefore no extenuating circumstances."
