翻訳；元慰安婦のために使われていなかった寄付金、韓国最高裁が返還命令＝韓国ネット称賛「名判決」

Ref.>"北朝鮮・金正恩氏、米国との『対決』準備と表明"

>"【話題】『韓国を推すテレビ局 日本人はウンザリしてる…』"

>"【韓国】ソウル市長、「日中韓首都外交」回復の必要性を主張"
-----------------------------------------

> ハーバード大学教授が「学術的」に慰安婦問題を否定！『日本は故郷』と呼ぶアメリカ人が語った慰安婦の実態とは…【海外の反応】


↓(See detail of this article)、レコード・チャイナの記事の翻訳（Translation of an article of Record China)

Translation; "Great sentence," S. Korean netizens praised so = the Supreme Court of Korea ordered the House of Sharing to return donations, which wasn't used for former comfort women

>"元慰安婦のために使われていなかった寄付金、韓国最高裁が返還命令＝韓国ネット称賛「名判決」"
> 2024年８月１日、韓国・東亜日報は「旧日本軍の慰安婦被害者支援施設『ナヌムの家』の後援者が同施設に寄付金の返還を求めた訴訟で、大法院（最高裁）が原告の訴えを認めた」と伝えた。
> 大法院は１日、原告の敗訴とした２審判決を破棄し、審理をソウル中央地裁に差し戻した。
> 当初、原告に伝えられた後援契約の目的と実際の使用現況は大きく異なり、後援契約は破棄することが可能だと判断した。
On Aug. 1, 2024, the Dong-A Ilbo in S. Korea reported that "The Supreme Court of Korea has upheld the complaint of the plaintiff in a lawsuit filed by a sponsor of the [House of Sharing], a support facility for former Japanese forces' comfort women, who sought the return of donations from the facility."
On Aug. 1, the Supreme Court of Korea overturned the second-instance ruling that dismissed the plaintiff's complaint and sent the case back to the Seoul Central District Court.
It ruled that the purpose of the sponsorship contract initially conveyed to the plaintiff was significantly different from the actual usage, it's therefore possible to terminate the sponsorship contract.

> 原告は 2017年８月から 20年４月まで、ナヌムの家の口座に月５万ウォン（約 5400円）の寄付金を振り込んでいた。
> しかし 20年５月、ナヌムの家が寄付金で６億ウォン相当の土地を購入していたこと、寄付金は運営法人に帰属しており施設では活用されておらず、慰安婦被害者らは病院の治療費を自費でまかなっていたことなどが発覚し物議を醸した。
> 同施設の一部の職員らが「ナヌムの家の実情は寄付金で運営されている無料の養老院。病院での治療や福祉は提供されていなかった」と暴露していた。
>'The plaintiff, surnamed Lee, donated 50,000 won (US$36.62) monthly to the House of Sharing bank account designed to accept donations for the former camp followers (* not wartime sexual slavery victims), euphemistically called "comfort women," on 31 occasions from Aug. 2017 to April 2020.'
However, in May 2020, it caused controversy when it was revealed that the House of Sharing purchased land worth 600 million won with donations, the donations belonged to the operating corporation and were not used by the facility, and that the CW (* not) victims had to cover hospital medical expenses by themselves.
Some staff members at the facility revealed that "The reality of House of Sharing is a free nursing home run by donations. Neither hospital treatment nor welfare were provided."

> １審、２審は「原告の寄付金が後援の目的とは異なる用途に使用されたことを認定するのは困難である」「後援契約を結んだ当時、原告を欺き錯誤に陥らせるなど違法行為があったとみることはできない」などとし、原告敗訴の判決を下していた。
> 当初は後援者 23人が訴訟に参加していたが、２審敗訴後に上告したのは原告１人だけだった。
> 大法院は「後援の目的と支援金の実際の使用現況の間には錯誤と評価できる不一致が存在する」と認めたという。
The 1st and 2nd trials handed down against the plaintiffs sentences, saying such as as follows;
"It's difficult to prove that the plaintiff's donations were used for purposes other than the purpose of the sponsorship."
"It can't be seen that there were any illegal activities, such as deceiving the plaintiff into a mistake, at the time when the sponsorship contract was concluded."
Initially, 23 sponsors joined the lawsuit, but after they lost in the 2nd trial, the plaintiff was the only one who appealed.
The Supreme Court of Korea allegedly acknowledged that "there is a discrepancy between the purpose of the sponsorship and the actual use of the donations that can be evaluated as a mistake."

> この記事に、韓国のネットユーザーからは「名判決だ」「大法院は常識に基づく正しい判決を下した」「１審２審の判事たちは辞職すべき」「１審２審はなぜそんな不公正な判決を下したのか」「当時は文在寅政権だったからじゃない？」「尹美香はどこに行った。逃げたのか？」「この問題の中心にいた女が国会議員にもなる世の中。まずきっちり調べて財産を差し押さえ刑務所に送るべきじゃないか」「今からでも金の流れを地球の果てまで追跡して調べるべき」などの声が寄せられている。
In response to the article, S. Korean netizens are posting comments as follows;
"It's a great sentence."
"The Supreme Court of Korea handed down the right verdict based on common sense."
"The judges in the 1st and 2nd trials should resign."
"Why did the 1st and 2nd trials make such unfair sentences?"
"It's because Moon Jae-in was in power around the time, isn't it?"
"Where did Yoon Mee-hyang go? Did she run away?"
"We live in a world where the female at the center of this issue even became a member of the National Assembly. First of all, we should investigate her thoroughly, seize her assets and send her to prison, shouldn't we?"
"Even from now on, we should trace and investigate the flow of money thoroughly."