Tokyo, November 11, 1958

GIST OF TALKS NINTEENTH SESSION SUBCOMMITTEE ON VESSEL, COMMITTEE ON KOREAN CLAIMS
1. Time and Place:
November 11, 1958(Tuesday), at 03:00 p.m. - 14:20 p.m., at Room 411, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Japanese Government
2. Conferees:
Korean side:
Mr. LEE Ho
Mr. CHEE Choul Keun
Mr. CHIN Pil Shik
Mr. MOON Chul Soon
Mr. OHM Young Dal
Mr. ROH Jae Won
Japanese side:
Mr. TAKANO Tokichi
Mr. YABE Masanobu
Mr. SUGANUMA Kiyoshi
Mr. TSUCHIYA Minao
3. Gist of Talks:
Mr. Takano:
Now, let us open today's session. Before we enter into discussions, I would like to say a word. Mr. Awasawa is absent from today's meeting because of unavoiable circumstances.
At the last session(Eighteenth session), the Korean side presented the first list of vessels falling under the scope of Agenda A. And the Japanese side received the list just for its reference as it was difficult for Japan to accept the list formally when the discrepancies of opinions still exist between two delegation.
Mr. Lee:
Though the Japanese side says the list was received just for reference, the Korean side, for its part, submitted the list formally, requesting the deliverys of the vessels therein.
Mr. Takano:
As far as the Japanese dalegation is concerned, the list was received for its reference.
Mr. Lee:
The problem ot the vessels to be returned to Korea under Agenda A had been fully discussed at the previous first, second, and third Korea-Japan Conferences, and detailed explanations were given to the Japanese side by my delegation at the present Talks. Therefore, it is with regret that your delegation reiterates the so-called discrepancies of views. My delegation is expecting from your side a clear-cut answer to the list which was submitted to you at the last session and which covers a part at vessels which the Japanese side recognised at previous conferences as the vessels of Korean registry located in Japan.
Mr. Takano:
How that we have conflicting views each other concerning the problem of the vessels coming under the scope of Agenda A, I suggest that we enter into discussions of Agenda B. However, before we take up the problem concerning Agenda B, my delegation would like to put several questions, for the purpose of simple reference, in connection with the list which the Japanese side received for its reference at the previous session.
Mr. Lee:
I can ▣ardly understand your suggestion that we take up the problems in Agenda B only because both sides entertain dilfferent views sach other on the problem of the vessels under Agenda A. It is unthinkable that both delegations enter into discussions of the questions of Agenda B before the Japanese side gives an answer to the Korean side with reference to the list submitted by my delegation at the previous meeting. we should proceed to Agenda B only after the settlement of the Agenda A.
Mr. Takano:
My delegation would like to ask two or three questions on the list
Mr. Lee:
If the questions are simple ones, you may put them now; otherwise please do them with written form.
Mr. Takano:
They are simple ones. Now, Mr. Yabe will put them to you.
Mr. Yabe:
Today, I would like to ask two or three simple questions on a part of vessels listed on the first list the Korean side presented at the last sesstion. There are several vesels which the Japanese side cannot identify or understand by means of tne data and records now in the hand of the Japanese side. They are 22 (S/No.) No.87 Hayafusa; 25.(S/No.) Chitori; 26(S/No.) No.8 Joyo; 27.(S/No) No.11 Azamizu; 29.9(S/No) No.2 Chitori; 31.(S/No.) No.3 Buri.
First, I was unable to find No.87 Hayafusa from the record which the Japanese Government keeps. Secondly, the Japanese side is unable to identify "Chang-won", tie port of registry of Chitori. Thirdly, I wonder if No.8 Joyo is same as No.8 Choyo. Fourthly, concerning No.11 Azamizu, if this vessel is correspond to No.11 Chosui, the vessel was returned to Korean side already. Fifthly, I think Japan returned No.2 Chitori to Korea.
Sixthly, as to No.3 Buri, the Japanese side is not able to find this vessel from any document or record. So, I think it might be a mistake.
Mr. Lee:
I will explain on them briefly, and another member may supplement my explanation, if necessary. As to No.87 Hayafuse, the Japanese side recognized at the First Korea-Japan Conference that it was the vessel of Korean registry and was in Japan, too. Secondly, concerning the port of registry of "Chitori", Changwon is written 昌原 in Chinese lettets. This is one of counties of Kyong Sang Nam-Do. Thirdly, my delegation will check it later on 26. (S/No.) No.8 Joye and will give you an answer thereon. Fourthly, I think the vessel "No.11 Azamizu". is defferent from "Chosui," which you have referred to. Fifthly, as to 29.(S/No.) No.2 Chitori, I am in the belief that the vessel was in Japan sad naver returned to Korea. And, lastly, conncerning 31(S/No) No.3 Buri, as far as I know, there is no mistakes in connection with the name. gross tonnage, and other description on the vessel and further that the vessel was registered in Korea and existed in Japan, according to our records.
Mr. Chin:
Though the pronunciations of "Joyo" and "Choyo" are quite similar each other, it is not sure whether the name of "Choyo" is identical to "Joyo," for the ro▣...▣sizations of Chinese letters are not uniform and not always same. accordingly, I request you to furnish the Korean side with the detailed description concerning "No.8 Choyo," so that we may be able to make a comparative check whether "No.8 Joyo" is identical to "No.8 Choyo." Furthermore, under the same reason I told you now, the Korean side asks the Japanese side to present a full description on "No.11 Chosui."
Mr. Yabe:
As to No.87 Hayafusa, I will check it later; however, the Japanese records do not carry it.
In additional list submitted by the Korean side at the First Korea Japan Conference, there was a vessel with the name, "No.8 Choyo," which is same as "No.8 Joyo" in its gross tonnage, former owner and port of registry. As to "No.11 Asamizu," it is same with "No.11 Chosui," which was returned to Korea, in its gross tonnage, former owner, and port of registry.
Mr. Lee:
Since you say that No.8 "Joyo" and No.8 "Choyo" are akin to each other, my delegation will check them later; nevertheless, if there is any difference between the two vessels in their description, I am sure the former vessel will be different one from the latter. And, concerning "No.11 Chosui", in its description, Mr. Yabe said that this vessel was very much akin to "No.11 Asamizu. Though I will check it later, of course, I would like to ask your side how, when, where, and to whom the vessel, "No.11 Chosui" was returned?
Mr. Yabe:
No.11 Chosui" was returned to Korea through Mr. D.E. Killpe on June 4, 1947 at Pusan, according to the record kept by the Japanese side.
Mr. Lee:
The name, killpe, does not seem to be the name of a Korean.
Mr. Yabe:
According to the record, the vessel was returned to Korea through Mr. Killpe, anyway. And, concerning "No.2 Chitori," it was returned to Korea, according to the record, on June 23, 1950 through Mr. Lee, a third secretary of the Korean Government, at Shimonoseki. The gross tonnage, former owner, and port of registry of this vessel is name with that of "No.2 Chitori," which appears in the first list presented by the Korean delegation at the last meeting.
Mr. Lee:
There are hundreds of thousand Mr. Lees in Korea. So, the Korean side is unable to find who the Mr. Lee concerned was. The record is too vague. "No.2 Chitori" was included, anyhow, in the list under reference in accordance with the evidences found in the record which the Korean side kept. Furthermore, is the year of 1950, there was no coming and going between two countries. I wonder, then, how end in what way the vessel was returned to Korea in that year.
Mr. Yabe:
Is "Chang-Won" the name of port where "Chitori" was registered ?
Mr. Lee:
No, "Chang-won" is not the name of the port; it is the name of a county in Kyongsang Nam-Do. ln Korea, vessels are registered with a county office, especially in case there are many small fishing villages in the county concerned.
Mr. Lee:
It seems to me that the Japanese side conducted a thorough study and investigation on the list which my delegation presented at the last session, I hope that the Jepanese side gives my delegation here a clear-cut answer that it will return to Korea the vessels appearing in the first list now under reference.
Mr. Takano:
My delegation studied the list and put several questions on it for a simple reference.
Mr. Lee:
When Korea was under the administration of the Japanese Government, there were a great number of Korean registry vessels. After the end of Second World War, most of them were taken away by the Japanese from Korea. So, delegation, believing that the Jepanese side was in better position to know the Korean registry vessels in Japan, requested the latter to present the list at the vessels coming under the scope of Agena A. However, as it had not complied with the request, my delegation put forth the first list at the last session, with a view to expediting the works of this Subcommittee. The Korean side is reserving to present addtional lists of the vessels under Agenda A as the Japanese sids does not give a clear-cut answer that it would return thes to Korea.
Mr. Takano:
My delegation thinks that we right as well proceed with Agenda B as the discrepancies of views have not bean solved in connection with the legal basis of the Korean claims against Japan to Korean registry vessels under Agenda A.
Mr. Lee:
It is a principle that we should enter into the discussions on the problem related to Agenda B after we settle the questions of the vessels coming under the scope of Agenda A. I can hardly understand your suggestion that we proceed with Agenda B without reaching any agreement whatsoever on the
problem falling within the scope of Agenda A.
Mr. Takano:
Previously, we once took up the problem of Agenda B before reaching an agreement on Agenda A. Therefore, I think we might as well follow the past experience in this occasion. It may be an idea, of course, that we enter into the discussions of the problem connected with Agenda B after we settle the problem related to Agenda A; however, as conflicting view are not settled in connection with the problem of Agenda A, and, also, for the purpose of expediting our talks, we might as also well take up the questions of Agenda B now, and discuss on the problem of Agenda C and D subsequently for an overall discussion of the problem of vessels as a whole.
Mr. Lee:
You repeatedly say that there exists discrepancies of views between two delegations in connection with the legal basis of the Korean claims against Japan to the vessels under Agenda A, while my delegation thinks otherwise. Such being the case, it the Japanese side adheres to the above stand, I suggest that the Japanese side puts forward its view in this regard in a written form so that we can study it. My delegation will receive it as reference
Mr. Takano:
I don't think the idea would be very good in the course of froe discussions; however; if the Korean side wants the Japanese view to be presented in a written form, my delegation will do so, when the Korean side submits its stand in a written from, too.
Mr. Lee:
The Korean side does not see the necessity of putting forth its stand in a written form as it thinks that the issues connected with Agenda A have already been clarified fully. I can hardly understand why the Japanese side develops its opinion under the premises that the discrepancies of views between two delegations on the problem relating to Agenda A will not be ironed out. Should the Japanese side show its sincerity, this problem would be easily settled.
Mr. Lee:
when shall we hold next meeting
Mr. Takano:
How about next Wednesday and 3:00 p.m. ?
Mr. Lee:
Can't we meet earlier than that ?
Mr. Takano:
My delegation has a full schedule until that date.
Mr. Lee:
If yon say so, I will not oppose to the date.
Mr. Takano:
Let me suggest that we follow the previous method for press release.
Mr. Lee:
No objection.

- The end -