HIGHLIGHTS OF DISCUSSION IN THE CLAIMS COMMITTEE OF THE KOREA- JAPAN CONFERENCE SINCE FEBRUARY 20, 1952
1. THE 1ST SESSION, February 20, 1952
After agreement on the procedural matters in the Committee, the Korean delegation formally presented the Principles of the Draft Agreement on the Disposition of Property Claims between the Republic of Korea and Japan retaining the right to make proposals or additional proposals.
2. THE 2ND SESSION, February 23, 1952
The Korean delegation gave the explanations item by item on its eight point proposal presented at the first session. The following are the gist of such explanations:
a. In regard to paragraph 1, return of precious articles is to be settled politically rather than legally for the future friendly relations between the Republic of Korea and Japan through the amicable cooperation of the Japanese Government.
b. With regard to paragraph 2, repayment to the Republic of Korea of the obligations and debts of the Government of Japan to the Government-General of Chosun as of August 9, 1945 is to be made on the ground that the Government of the Republic of Korea succeeded the United States Military Government in Korea which had vested in and owned all the properties of the Government-General of Chosun.
c. Concerning paragraph 3, return of monetary accounts transferred or remitted from Korea on and/or since August 9, 1945 is to be made in accordance with the USAMGIK Ordinance No. 33 promulgated on December 6, 1945, by which all properties of Japan and its nationals under the jurisdiction of the United States Army Military Governor in Korea had been vested in and owned by the United States Army Military Government in Korea on September 25, 1945 and thereafter had been transferred to the Government of the Republic of Korea.
d. Regarding paragraph 4, return of properties in Japan of the Korean juridical persons with head offices in Korea as of August 9, 1945 is to be also made pursuant to the aforementioned Military Government Ordinance No. 33 and the Initial Financial and Property Settlement of the United States of America dated September 11, 1949, just as dispositions of properties in Japan of its natural persons.
e. With respect to paragraph 5, repayment of claims of Korean nationals and of the juridical persons of Korea to the Government of Japan and its nationals is to be made to the Korean nationals and its juridical persons with head offices in Korea.
f. Concerning paragraph 6, legality of Korean nationals’ and/or its juridical persons’ ownership of the shares or other securities issued by the Japanese juridical persons as of August 9, 1945, which, it is said, were nullified is to be recognized in accordance with the said Military Government Ordinance No. 33 and the Article 4 of the Peace Treaty.
g. Regarding paragraph 7, all the interests and profits as have been or will be yielded by the said properties and claims are to be returned and.
h. Regarding paragraph 8, method of return or payment of the said properties and claims is to be treated as same as that of properties and claims in Japan of Allied nationals pursuant to the Article 15 of the Peace Treaty.
3. THE 3RD SESSION, February 27, 1952
The Korean delegation continued to explain their positions on the proposals made at the first session. In their views, the materialization of the return would be decided case by case, for instance, if necessary, properties acquired through the legal process might be paid for.
4. THE 4TH SESSION, MARCH 3, 1952
Through questions and answers exchanged by both sides on the principles of the Korean proposal, clarification was made on the following points:
1) Concerning paragraph 3-return of monetary accounts transferred and/or remitted from Korea on or after August 9, 1945-the Korean side stated:
a) “transfer” and/or “remittance” included those made through Post Offices, but the Korean claims arising from transfer or remittance through Post Offices are to be treated separately from the claims under paragraph 2 because the former is as after August 9, 1945.
b) payment, under this paragraph, would be made by the Japanese Government if or when it is unable to get payment from the Japanese individuals involved, and
c) the problem concerning “transfer” or “remittance” made through the financial institutions in Korea with head offices in Japan and disbursed by those head offices to Japanese individuals concerned without actual movement of funds between Korea and Japan, should be separately discussed hereafter.
2) Concerning paragraph 4-return of the properties in Japan of juridical persons with head office in Korea as of August 9, 1945-the Korean side explained:
On the outline of procedures relating to the disposition of the rights owned by Japan or Japanese stock or debenture holders, and on the process of the dispositions of the property vested in by the U.S. Military Government Ordinance No. 33, and further
a) that the legal capacity of Japanese juridical persons in Korea had been recognized not by the Japanese Commercial Law but by the Governor-General’s Decree on Civil Code; and that the present Bank of Korea is entirely a different one from the former Bank of Chosun which is now under liquidation;
b) that it is only the Chosun Mailship Company Ltd. that was nationalized;
c) that in paragraph 4 the properties of juridical persons concerned meant all their assets and liabilities;
d) that the bona-fide administration by the Japanese authorities for the properties under this item could be recognized, but further discussion was to be held separately;
e) that the disposition of holdings owned by Japanese members of partnership or foundation was the same as in the case of shares in the limited company; of these, the legal basis of the request for the foundation, e.g., “the Foundation for Japanizing Korean Students in Japan” (CHOSUN JANGHAKWHOI) was more obvious;
f) that “the Mutual Aid Association for Korean Railway Employees” (KONGJAI JOHAP) was an extraordinary juridical person, against which its members had no claims to their contributions except the right to the residual property, only when it was dissolved,
g) that the detailed inventories on disposition of Japan or Japanese properties in Korea could not be submitted, since those properties were disposed, not separately but in bloc, in accordance with the USAMGIK Ordinance No. 33.
3) Paragraph 5-repayment of national or public bonds, notes, outstanding obligations and other claims, the Korean side made the following explanations:
a) the “Korean juridical persons” referred therein included the vested companies,
b) the public bonds meant such as those issued by the Hypothec Bank (Kangyo-gin-ko).
c) the Bank of Japan notes in possession of the Government of the Republic of Korea were exchanged for the Bank of Korea notes at par by the directive of the United States Military Government in Korea.
d) the outstanding accounts or advances of the Bank of Japan to the Bank of Chosun meant those which the latter made advance payment for the military use of Japan, without receiving remittance from Japan on or since August 9, 1945.
e) the consolation money to be paid for Koreans dead in the was to be discussed in the near future, but in this regard, if possible, the information concerning the measures taken by the Japanese Government authorities for Japanese victims were requested.
f) the unpaid salaries for Koreans in Japan should be returned to the Government of the Republic of Korea, and
g) the outstanding exchange balance [between] Japan and Korea meant the one as of August 9, 1945.
4) Paragraph 6-recognition of the legality of the Korean or its juridical persons’ ownership of the shares or other securities, Korean side stated that:
a) “other securities” included above, meant “bond”,
b) Japanese juridical person involved, meant the one with head office in Japan, and
c) “legal recognition” would be materialized by giving the newly issued shares to the rightful owner or by other indemnity, but it was to be settled case by case.
5) Paragraph 7-return of all the interests as have been or will be yielded by the above mentioned properties or claims, Korean side explained that the fruits under this paragraph, indicated interests from bonds, rents from real properties, and interests from reserve funds for pension.
6) Paragraph 8-execution of all those returns and repayments of the accounts, Korean side desired that they be settled in the shortest time under the spirit expressed in Article 15 of the Peace Treaty.
5. THE 5TH SESSION, March 6, 1952
The Japanese delegation presented its proposal, “BASIC PRINCIPLES OF THE AGREEMENT TO BE CONCLUDED BETWEEN JAPAN AND THE REPUBLIC OF KOREA CONCERNING THE DISPOSITION OF PROPERTY AND CLAIMS,” (ANNEX II) and gave its explanation of the fundamental theories and each paragraph of the proposal(ANNEX).
6. THE 6 TH SESSION, March 10, 1952
The Japanese side asked for having questions and answers on its proposal, but the Korean side viewed its difference on the Japanese proposal as in Annex IV. Though in the view of the Japanese side it would be proper to have questions and answers in detail on its proposal, the Korean side replied that it would be unnecessary to do so because of a fundamental difference in the legal assertions of both sides which now existed.