동북아역사넷

상세검색 공유하기 모바일 메뉴 검색 공유
닫기
리스트

한일회담외교문서

상세검색

닫기
회의명
기사명
작성·수신·발신자
문서종류
사료라이브러리 열기
ID :NAHF.kj.d_0001_0020_0110IDURL
사료라이브러리 열기
  • 글씨크게
  • 글씨작게
  • 프린트
  • 텍스트
  • 오류신고

제8차 한일회담 경과보고에 관한 건

 
  • 발신자대일강화회담 대한민국대표단단장 양유찬
  • 수신자외무부장관
  • 날짜1951년 11월 24일
  • 문서종류공한
  • 문서번호한일회 제21호
  • 형태사항필사 국한문 
韓日會 第二十一號
檀紀 四二八四年 十一月二十四日
對日 講和會談 大韓民國 代表團 團長 梁祐燦
外務部長官 貴下
第八次 韓日會談 經過報告에 關한 件
 

標記의 件에 關하여 別添 經過報告書를 上達하오니 査收하시옵기 仰望하나이다
別添 第八次 韓日會談 經過報告書

 
별지 : 제8차 한일회의 경과해제
 
  • 날짜1951년 11월 22일
  • 문서종류회의록
  • 형태사항필사 국한문 
제8차 한일회의 경과
一. 개 회 11월 22일 (목요일 미국 추수감사절) 오후 3시 22분
二. 출석자 1. 일본 측 千葉, 田中, 平賀 대표
今井, 佐治 참관
2. 한국 측 양 대사, 김 총영사, 유, 임, 갈 대표
박 비서, 김 국장, 홍 국장, 황 국장, 김 이사관 참관
3. SCAP측 SULLIVAN 서기관
三. 회의경과
1. 2월에 재개할 회의에 관한 일본 측 답변
전반 회의에서 명년 2월에는 한일 간 제 현안을 전부 토의 결정할 수 있는가 명확한 회답을 요구하였든바 일본 측 대표는 전반회의에서 「명년 2월까지도 충분한 준비를 완료치 못하겠다」고 한 발언을 다소 수정한다고 전언(前言)하고 「재산 급 청구권에 관하여는 일본정부 관계부성과 상의한 결과 2월 회의에서 토의를 개시할 수 있다는 것과 또 어업협정에 관하여는 현재 미·가 양국과 교섭 중인데 최근 「인도네시아」 급 호주 측으로부터 교섭을 받고 있다. 고로 미·가회의 후에 계속하여 「인도네시아」와 호주하고 회담하여야 할 것이다. 다만 어업에 관한 일본의 전문가 수효가 부족하여 명년 2월에 한국과 교섭을 개시할 수 있을지 의문이다. 2월까지 이상 각국과의 협정이 완결되면 물론 한국과 교섭을 시작할 수 있을 것이나 약속할 수는 없다. 통상항해조약에 관하여는 일본의 입장이 더욱 곤란하다. 즉 미국과 통상항해조약 교섭을 곧 시작하게 되는데 여러 가지 중요한 문제가 많아서 시일이 걸릴 것인 고로 평화조약 발효 시까지 한국과 이 조약을 체결할 수 있을지 모르겠다. 또 통상항해조약은 한일 간의 중요한 안건을 포함하는 고로 일미조약을 그대로 견본으로 할 수 없을 것이다. 그러나 만약 한국정부한일통상항해조약 초안을 작성하여 명년 2월 회의에 제출하여 준다면 수리하여 연구하겠으나 교섭개시는 곤란할 것이다. 이상과 같은 일본 측 입장을 한국 측에서 널리 양해하여 주기 바란다」라는 발언이 있었음. 한국 측 양 대사는 이에 대하여 井口를 통하여 倭島가 면회를 청하여 회견하였드니 「충분히 일본 측이 준비될 것을 절대로 보증한다」는 것이었고 井口씨도 면회하여 한일조약 등을 체결하겠나 안 하겠나 문서로 확답하여 달라 하였드니 역시 절대로 하겠다는 대답이 있었는데 오늘 千葉 대표의 이야기는 판이하니 이해하기 곤란하다고 반문하니 일본 측에서 「井口씨나 倭島씨가 틀린 말을 하였을 리는 없으니 결국 그분들 말은 「재산 내지 청구권의 건」에 관한 이야기일 것이다」라고 회피하였음
2. 평화조약 발효 시까지 조약체결이 안된 시의 조치
양 대사가 AGENDA에 예거된 각 항은 일본 측이 제안한 것으로 이것을 결정하자는 것인데 일본 측이 천연(遷延)시키는 것의 부당함을 지적하고 특히 일본이 어업협정의 조기체결을 회피하는데 관하여 만약 평화조약은 발효하고 조약이 체결되지 않으면 한일 양국의 어업에 있어서 항상 분쟁이 발생할 것이라고 말하니 일본 측 대표는 통상 항해조약 같은 것도 복잡하고 곤란한 것인데 평화조약 발효 시까지 조약이 되지 않으면 결국 중단시키는 데에 필요한 임시협정(PROVISIONAL REEMENT NECESSARY TO CARRY ON)이라도 할 필요가 있으니 현재 SCAP 과 한국이 체결한 통상협정과 해운협정을 계속 시행하도록 연장조치하면 될 것이라고 하므로 직시 양 대사가 「어업문제도 포함하나」라고 질문하니 일단 그렇다고 대답하고, 재차 양 대사가 「그러면 맥아-더선을 연장시행하면 된다는 것이 아니냐」하고 확인하니, 일본 측은 미·가·일 어업협정을 견본으로 하여도 맥아-더 라인을 시인하는 결과가 되지 않을 것이라는 것과 잠정적인 조치로 협정할 수 있다는 답변이 유하였음. 한국 측에서 그렇다면 일본정부 상층부와 연락하여 평화조약 발효 시까지 조약이 안 될 시는 현재 SCAP 이 제정한 일체 조치 예지(例之) 통상해운협정 맥라인 등은 그대로 연장시행 하겠다는 근본방침을 회답하여 달라고 요청하니 일본 측에서는 명년 2월에 하면 된다는 것으로 어업에 관하여는 조약이 없어도 국제법원칙이 적용되어 공해자유원칙을 따를 것이고 연구할 문제이니 2월에나 회답하겠다는 것이었음 김 총영사가 통상해운협정은 연장할 수 있고, 맥 라인은 연장 못하는 이유를 무른 즉 千葉은 「이 점에 대하여는 자기로는 대답할 수 없다. 연구하고 상의는 하겠다」는 답변이었음. 양 대사가 일본의 태도를 문서로 보내 달라는 요청을 하셨음.
3. 명년 2월까지의 준비문제
한국 측에서는 명년 2월까지 본회의가 계속된다고 주장하였는데 일본 측에서는 본회의는 일단 종료하고 명년 2월까지의 기한에는 자료정보 등의 요청이 한국 측에 유하면 이에 응할 것이고 본회의 외에서 의견교환(EXCHANGE OF VIEWS)을 하는 것을 희망한다는 주장이 유하였음.
4. 재일교포 법적지위 분과위원회 보고서 접수 토의
a. 유 대표로부터 제기 분과위원회의 한일 양국 대표를 대표하여 분과위원회 경과와 공동보고서 제출의 경위 급 공동보고서에 첨부된 양국주장의 요약문은 참고자료로 공(供)한다는 보고가 유하였고 보고서를 제출하였음. (공동보고서는 제9 급 제10차 분과위원회 경과보고에 첨부하여 기이(旣而) 본국정부에 상달하였음) 양 대사는 한국 측이 주장하는 1945년 8월 9일 이전부터 일본에 거주하는 한인의 특별취급 요구를 부연설명하고 이러한 한인들에게도 일일이 영주허가신청을 하게 하여 2천 엔 식을 받는 것은 부당하다는 설명을 한바 일본 측에서 그 점은 분과위원회에서 토의된 것으로 본다는 것이었음.
b. 국적문제 원칙론
한국국적 취득과 일본국적 상실이라는 근본문제에 있어서 시기를 결정함은 각자 국내법으로 처리할 수 있는바 일본 측 견해는 이 사람들이 평화조약 발효 시까지 일본인이라고 생각한다라는 발언이 있자 양 대사는 일본인이라면 해방 후 지금까지 과거 6년 간 선거권을 주었나. 한인이 언제 일본인이 된 일이 있나. 대표 없는 과세(TAXTION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION)는 부당치 않나를 추궁한 즉 일본 측에서 1910년 을사조약으로 한인이 일본인이 되었다는 것이고 납세자에게 참정권을 주는 것은 불란서혁명 이후에 비로소 생긴 것이라고 답변하였는데 양 대사는 절대로 한인이 일인이 된 일은 없다고 답변하고, 불란서혁명 운운은 부당하다. 한국은 일본의 기반(羈絆)으로부터 1945년 8월 9일 해방되었으니 한인은 절대로 일인이 된 일이 없다. 일인은 “포츠담 선언”을 수락하지 않았나 하고 질문하니 일본 측에서 「역사적인 이야기는 그만두기로 하자. 포츠담 선언은 조건부로 수락하였다」함에 양 대사 「무슨 소리냐 일본이 “포선언”을 무조건으로 수락치 않았다니 세상에 이런 일이 있을 수 있나. 대한민국은 주권국가이고 일본은 주권국가가 아니다. 세계 각국이 승인한 주권국가인 대한민국의 국민이 비주권 국가의 국민이라는 것은 무슨 말이냐」고 난힐(難詰)하니 일본 측에서 「포선언」은 무조건 수락한 것을 잘못 말했다. 주권국가 운운의 문제를 주장한다면 일본 측 대표는 이 회의에서 발언하지도 못하겠다. 오늘 토론의 주제에서 좀 거리가 멀어진 것 같은데 결국 한국 국내법에 의하여 한국국적을 취득하고 일본의 국내법으로 보아 일본국적 소지자이니 이중국적자가 된다」고 한 데 대하여 한국 측에서는 「그것은 오견이다. 우리는 그런 주장을 인정치 않는다」라고 답변하였고 일본 측이 임시로 영주허가수속을 간편히 하겠다는 내용 약하를 문의하니 일본 측에서는 분과위원회에서 토의된 것이니 다시 반복치 않겠다고 답변하였음.
5. 분과위원회 보고서 수정
한국 측 유대표가 분과위원회 보고서 I의 (1) (2)는 더 간단히 하여 수정하여 달라는 요청을 하여 별첨과 여히 수정키로 가결함
四. 폐회
내주 수요일 오전 10시 재개키로 하고 하오 4시 45분 산회하였음.

 
별지 : 진행경과 요약해제
 
  • 날짜1951년 11월 22일
  • 문서종류회의록
  • 형태사항영어 
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
 

November 22, 1951


The delegates assembled at the conference table at 3:25 P.M. Dr. Yang asked Mr. Chiba if he would open the discussions. Mr. Chiba replied by indicating that the nationality sub-committee report was still being typed and would not be ready for several minutes. He suggested that the conference turn to other matters until such time as the report was ready.
He referred to Dr. Yang's request at the previous meeting that the Japanese Government reconsider its disposition toward those items of the agenda which it would be prepared to discuss at the proposed conference in February. He indicated that he was now prepared to revise his previous statement to a certain extent. In particular, he advised that his Government would be ready in February to consider the question of claims and property. On this subject the Japanese Government would like to hear in February the proposals of the Korean Government and would also have certain proposals of its own to submit.
As far as the discussion on fisheries was concerned, Mr. Chiba explained that the Japanese Government was approached by Indonesia and Australia considerably prior to the opening of these present talks and that it feels obliged to negotiate with those two Government first after the completion of current discussions with the United States and Canada. It was the earnest hope of the Japanese Government that the Indonesian and Australian arrangements would be completed prior to February, this permitting negotiations at that time with the Korean Government. However, in view of the limited number of experts within the Japanese Government on this subject, Mr. Chiba indicated that no promises could be made at this time concerning the readiness on the Japanese Government to negotiate at any fixed date.
As for the treaty of commerce and navigation, Mr. Chiba found the Japanese Government's position even more difficult. He said that discussions were being undertaken within the very near future with the United States on a treaty of commerce and navigation, but that there was no indication when these would be completed. He mentioned a newspaper despatch from Washington which suggested that the United States Government would not be concerned if this treaty were not concluded prior to the effective date of the peace Treaty. He indicated that it might be well after the effective date of the Peace Treaty before Japan could conclude this first treaty in its intended series of commerce and navigation treaties.
Furthermore, he questioned that it was exactly correct to consider the U.S. treaty as a pattern for a treaty between Korea and Japan, where there existed so many problems peculiar to the two nations. At any rate, Japan's ability to negotiate such a treaty was limited by the scarcity of experts available to the Japanese Government. The department in charge of such matters advised that negotiations would not be possible much before next June. It, however, the Korean Government should have a draft treaty available for discussion in February, the Japanese Government would be pleased to accept its and to study it provisions but could not assume to enter into negotiations on it at that time.
In conclusion, Mr. Chiba expressed the hope that the Korean Government would be prepared to meet with the Japanese Government in the first part of February on the basis of the understanding outlined above. He know that they fell rather short of what the Korean Government had expected but he wished to assure the Korean delegation that this was the best which the Japanese Government could offer at this time.
In reply, Dr. Yang stated that he had held a long discussion with Mr. Yajima of the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs on the evening of November 12. This discussion arose as a result of Dr. Yang's conversation with Mr. Iguchi earlier that day. In the course of the discussion. Mr. Wajima had "guaranteed" that the Japanese Government would be prepared to take up all matters in February, he said that the contrast between this statement and Mr. Chiba's present statement left him puzzled since he felt sure that he and Mr. Wajima had understood the significance of all that passed between them. Mr. Chiba pointed out that he had taken the trouble to consult with Mr. Wajima before this meeting to determine exactly Dr. Yang. It was his understanding that Mr. Wajima's use of the term "fully prepared" pertained only to claims and not to fisheries or commerce and navigation.
Dr. Yang said that what he was talking about was the entire agenda and that it these discussions are confined only to claims, the two Governments would not have concluded a bilateral treaty in any sense of the word. For example, if the Peace Treaty went into effect prior to the conclusion of some arrangement concerning fishing rights there would inevitably be incidents involving Korean and Japanese fisherman which could only lead to unfortunate results. It was these results that he was trying to avoid by proposing an early settlement of the fishing question prior to the effective date of the Treaty of Peace.
Mr. Chiba agreed that such a circumstance might regretfully be true, but that it would result not from any deliberate intention but only from the physical impossibility of concluding a fisheries agreement in the necessary time. As for commerce and navigation treaties, he cited the example of negotiations between United States and Colombia which he understood consumed a year and a half. He thought it would not be feasible to expect the completion of any negotiation between Korea and Japan on commerce and navigation prior to the effective date of the Peace Treaty. However, he considered that an arrangement could be made extending the current relationship between Korea and SCAP or else merely applying the principles outlined in Article 12 of the Peace Treaty.
Dr. Yang asked if the Japanese Government would be willing to develop a similar interim arrangement with respect to fisheries and to maintain the MacArthur Line on the basis of temporary agreement prior to the conclusion of a formal fisheries treaty. Mr. Chiba indicated that he did not desire to go into the substance of the fisheries question but suggested that a study of the Japanese position in negotiations with United States and Canada made it clear the Japanese Government does not consider the restrictive concept of the MacArthur Line as desirable. Their best hope to avoid entanglement on the fisheries issue with Korea is to achieve speedy negotiations with Indonesia and Australia thus clearing the way for an agreement with Korea. He suggested that it might be pertinent for the Korean delegation to submit a proposal for the continuation of the MacArthur Line in February in the event that the Japanese Government is not ready at that time to talk concretely about the fisheries issue. He could not assure Dr. Yang of the nature of Japan's answer to such a proposal but indicated that his Government would be glad to entertain the idea.
Dr. Yang proposed that the Japanese Government address a letter to the Korean Government agreeing that all original arrangements between the Republic of Korea and SCAP be maintained pending the independent settlement of new procedures directly between the Republic of Korea and Japan. This would include much matters as the present situation until a more adequate solution could be found. In particular, it would prevent the problem of poaching in fishing grounds that might lead to disturbing incidents.
Mr. Chiba stated that again he hesitated to go into the substance of the fisheries question, but felt that even in the absence of some specific arrangement there were international usages that would apply and would govern fishing in areas of common concern to the two countries. He felt that this was the normal procedure and that specific agreements were the exception. He pointed out that while the Koreans might consider fishing by Japanese across the current MacArthur Line as poaching, from the Japanese point of view it was merely the exercise of normal fishing rights and the MacArthur Line constituted a restriction upon these rights. He repeated his previous suggestion that the matter be brought up in February and not at this time.
Dr. Yang asked why it could not be brought up now. Mr. Chiba explained that such a provisional arrangement would rejudge and would very likely become a permanent state of affairs. He pointed out that in February there would be three possibilities with regard to fisheries (1) the Japanese would be prepared to discuss and reach agreement with the Korean on the subject, (2) both countries could agree upon a provisional arrangement panding ultimate solution, or (3) nothing could be done in February and an ultimate solution would have to await the readiness of both sides to reach a permanent agreement.
Mr. Kim asked why an interim agreement could be proposed for commercial relations and could not be considered for fishing. Mr. Chiba replied that, to be quite frank, the current commercial arrangements were quite satisfactory to the Japanese Government. Mr. Kim asked if this implied that the MacArthur Line was not satisfactory. In a laughing manner, Mr. Chiba stated that out of consideration to the observer, he felt that he would prefer not to answer that question directly.
Dr. Yang, in summing up, asked that Mr. Chiba check once again with Mr. Wajima concerning the latter's intentions in his previous conversation with Dr. Yang. He particularly wanted to know whether the Japanese Government would be prepared to enter into discussions on all items of the agenda in February. If not, he requested that the Japanese Government signify its willingness to maintain the current arrangements instituted by SCAP and the Republic of Korea in order to prevent any incidents between the two countries. He specified that he preferred to have this willingness stated in a written communication to the Korean Government. Mr. Chiba said that he would be willing to relay these requests to his superiors but he did not feel that much could be said on the second proposal at this time. Before closing discussion on these points, he desired to point out that is connection with the preparations for the February conference the Japanese Government would be pleased to provide information and facilities to the Korean Government if there are any requests for such. He felt that this could be done either through direct conferences or through the Korean Mission in Japan. He also suggested that there will be another channel established which he is not yet prepared to discuss. With reference to Mr. Chiba's mention of "conference", Dr. Yang asked if that implied this present conference would continue in session and Mr. Chiba stated that he would prefer to discuss that with Dr. Yang on some other occasion. It was then agreed to go on to the report of the nationality sub-committee which had been completed during the prior discussion.
Dr. Yu Chin, O, in submitting the sub-committee's report, made the follow statement:
"The Sub-Committee on the Korean Residents in Japan was appointed and called to commence its business at the Conference of whole of the 30th of October and opened on 11:30 A.M. of that date and have had 10 meetings to date. At the 1st and 2nd Meeting which were held on 30th and 31 of Oct. respectively, the Japanese side explained the treatment of those Koreans in the past and the present circumstances as well as the provisions of the Japanese Immigration Order."
"At the 3rd Meeting held on Nov. 2, Korean representatives presented their views on the subject. On 7 Nov., having studied the previous proposal made by the Korean side, Japanese representatives made clear their counterview on this subject at the 4th meeting. The 5th meeting was called to open on 9 Nov. for the discussion of detailed technical points regarding the removal of personal properties which are to be carried with those Koreans who would repatriate."
"Since both sides clarified their views fully during those sessions, it was agreed to prepare written statements of these views in order to facilitate the further discussion. The 6th and 7th meetings held on 12 Nov. and 14 Nov. respectively for further study of the written statements prepared by both sides and decided to submit the same to the Main Conference. It was also suggested at the 7th meeting that both sides draft the joint-report on the matters which have been agreed upon at the meetings. The 8th and 9th meetings on the afternoon of Nov. 14 and 17 were solely devoted to study and trim the draft of the said joint report of which final draft was adopted at Nov. 20th's tenth meeting. This final drafts is the report which we have just presented here."
"Therefore, this Joint Report is a summary of the views discussed and the matters agreed on at the sub-committee and the detailed views of both sides are attached to this report. As these attached documents have been prepared separately by two parties, it is our desire to use these statements for the reference."
"We feel that the sub-committee on the legal status of Koreans in Japan have finished its business as it has presented its point report." (A copy of the joint report, Japanese statement and Korean statement are attached).
At the completion of this statement, Mr. Chiba asked for clarification on one point. He said it was his understanding that the Joint statement constituted the report of the sub-committee and that the other two statements were attached, not as part of the report, but for reference purposes only. He would like to have that confirmed. There was general agreement on both sides of the table that Mr. Chiba's understanding was correct.
Dr. Yang, with reference to the sub-committee's report, stated that he would like once again to make clear the Korean position with reference to Korean residents in Japan. It was his Government's stand that there were two categories of Koreans resident in Japan (1) those who were in Japan prior to August 9, 1945 and (2) those who arrived in Japan after that date. He felt it proper to consider those in the second category as aliens but desired to point out that those in the first category had been given the same treatment and assumed the same obligations and duties as Japanese during all their years of residence. He felt it would be improper to treat both these categories in the same manner.
Mr. Chiba stated that he was not prepared to enter into a discussion of the report as yet, since he had not had an opportunity to study it; but he felt that Dr. Yang had touched upon some matters of principle with which the Japanese Government could not agree. Particularly the Japanese Government was not in accord with the Korean contention that August 9, 1945 was a significant date in connection with Korea nationality. The Japanese position was that Koreans in Japan were still Japanese until the effective date of the Peace Treaty, at which time they would become Koreans.
Dr. Yang asked if these Koreans had enjoyed suffrage and Mr. Chiba said No.Then Dr. Yang stated they are not Japanese nationals and have never become Japanese nationals in the true sense of the word. Mr. Chiba stated that he felt it was indisputable that they had become Japanese nationals as of 1910. But Dr. Yang replied that the fact that they had never been allowed to vote in Japan was a contradiction of the notion that these Korean had become Japanese nationals. Mr. Chiba pointed out that the question of universal suffrage was a rather recent innovation and could not be accepted as a proper criterion for nationality.
Dr. Yang then asked if it were not true that Japan had accepted the Potsdam Declaration and its implications with regard to Korea. Mr. Chiba replied that although the Potsdam Declaration had been accepted, its terms were not to be implemented until a Treaty of Peace could come into effect. Dr. Yang stated that he felt that he felt this was somewhat at variance with reality since Korea had become sovereign and had been recognized by the United Nations and had established a Nationality Act of its own. Mr. Chiba replied that he did not dispute the sovereignty of Korea or the effectiveness of its Nationality Act. But he pointed out that it had not been formally recognized as yet by Japan and that even if it were, it would only result in the establishment of dual nationality for the individual Koreans involved. He want on to point out that Japan could not make an exception in its ultimate treatment of one category of Korean residents with respect to any other aliens in Japan and they would all have to receive the same treatment and privileges. However, he indicated that his Government was prepared to "facilitate the change-over" for those Koreans who had been in Japan for some time. For example, his Government might consider special exceptions from the payment of the two thousand yen registration fee and would otherwise make it easy for these people to assume their new alien status. However, he desired to make it clear that once the change-over had been made there could be no distinction in ultimate treatment and that Koreans would enjoy the same privileges as all other aliens in Japan.
Mr. Chiba then proposed that the nationality sub-committee report be referred to the two Governments to see if any new proposals would be possible.
If such proposals could be made he felt the matter could be turned back to the sub-committee for discussion of these proposals. Dr. Yang asked if (뒷부분 내용 유실)

 
이름
Yu Chin, O
지명
Australia , the United States , Canada , United States , Washington , Japan , Korea , Japan , United States , Colombia , Korea , Japan , Korea , United States , Canada , Korea , Indonesia , Australia , Korea , Republic of Korea , Republic of Korea , Japan , the Republic of Korea , Japan , Japan , Japan , Japan , Japan , Japan , Japan , Japan , Korea , Korea , Japan , Japan , Japan , Japan
관서
한국정부 , the Japanese Government , Japanese Government , Korean Government , the Japanese Government , the Japanese Government , the Korean Government , the United States Government , the Japanese Government , the Korean Government , the Japanese Government , Korean Government , the Japanese Government , the Korean Government , Japanese Government , the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs , the Japanese Government , the Japanese Government , Japanese Government , Japanese Government , the Japanese Government , Korean Government , Japanese Government , the Japanese Government , the Japanese Government , the Korean Government , the Japanese Government , Korean Government , the Japanese Government , Japanese Government
단체
Korean Mission , Japanese representatives , United Nations , sub-committee report
문서
經過報告書 , 第八次 韓日會談 經過報告書 , a newspaper , the joint-report , this Joint Report , Joint statement , the sub-committee's report , Nationality Act , Nationality Act
기타
어업협정 , 통상항해조약 , 통상항해조약 , 통상항해조약 , 한일통상항해조약 , 어업협정 , SCAP , 어업협정 , SCAP , 포츠담 선언 , 포츠담 선언 , treaty of commerce and navigation , the Peace Treaty , Treaty of Peace , commerce and navigation treaties , the Peace Treaty , SCAP , Article 12 of the Peace Treaty , the MacArthur Line , a formal fisheries treaty , the MacArthur Line , the MacArthur Line , SCAP , MacArthur Line , MacArthur Line , MacArthur Line , SCAP , the Japanese Immigration Order , the Peace Treaty , Potsdam Declaration , the Potsdam Declaration , Treaty of Peace

태그 :

태그등록
이전페이지 리스트보기 맨 위로