Tokyo, October 28, 1958

GIST OF TALKS TENTH SESSION COMMITTEE ON LEGAL STATUS OF KOREAN RESIDENTS IN JAPAN
1. Time and place: 3:00 - 4:15 p.m., October 27, 1958 (Monday), Rm.411, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Japanese Government
2. Conferees:
Korean side: Mr. CHOI, Kyu Hah
Mr. CHIN, Pil Shik
Mr. MOON, Chul Soon
Mr. ROH, Jae Won
Mr. OHM, Yung Dal
Japanese side: Mr. KATSUNO, Yasusuke
Mr. HIRAGA, Kenta
Mr. NAKAGAWA, Toyokichi
Mr. HASEGAWA, Shinzo
Mr. HIRAZUKA,
Mr. SHIMIZU, Shiro
Mr. SUGANUMA, Kiyoshi
Mr. TSUCHIYA, Minao
3. Gist of TaIks
Mr. KATSDNO:
We have studied the Korean proposal presented at the previous session of this committee. So we would like to ask a few questions in connection with the said proposal,
Mr. CHOI:
Before listening to your "questions", I would. like to restate the point three of reservations wihich I presented at the previous session of this committee together with the Korean proposal on the legal status of Korean residents in Japan This would like to do in order to make it sure that it is correctly received by you. Now the point 3 of reservations reads "The Korean side proposes Article 4 and 5 on the assumption that Korean residents could enjoy property rights and occupations which aliens in general are not entitled to enjoy though there is a paragraph of 'at the time of the coming into force of the present agreement ....'"
Mr. KATSUNO:
Would you mind clarifing for us what would be the exact meaning of the said reservation?
Mr. CHOI:
Since you said that you would present to us questions on our proposal, will you include the question as a part of your side's overall questions in connections with our proposal?
Mr. KATSUNO:
Then, since we have not had enough time to consult with the other Ministries concerned such as the Ministry of Finance which is concerned with the property rights, I would like to confine my questions for today to the points which are relative to the Ministry of Justice. Of course, we are trying to finish the consultations with the other Ministries on this matter so that we could present to your side the whole picture of our view regarding the Korean proposal as early as possible.
To make a general comment on the Korean proposal, we are frankly disappointed at the proposal, since the main body of the proposal, which is more or less like the joint draft worked out at the first Korea-Japan Conference in 1952, excluded the points that Japan wanted to cover in it at that time.
I should like to add that I will raise questions today on major points.
Mr. CHOI:
When can you present to us the whole views of your side on our proposal, including those points wihich are "relative" to other Ministries.
Mr. KATSUNO
I think we may be able to present the whole views in the course of the committee's study of the proposal point by point. By doing so, I wish we could discuss the matters one by one, exchanging the opinions of both sides on each point.
Mr. CHOI:
If co▣...▣ It might be a method of proceeding of the discussions but since our side presented to your aide a proposal. of ours covering the whole matters concerned, I with to have your overall views covering the whole of your view. Anyway, for today, we are ready to listen to your questions.
Mr. KATSUNO:
First, with regard to the wording "... the necessity to affirm the nationality of Koreans residing continuously in Japan. ...." in the Preamble, we believe there is no necessity of including such phrase in an international agreement. Since by the coming into force of the San Francisco Peace Treaty, "Koreans residing in Japan" lost their Japanese nationality, it is the position of the Japanese Government that it has nothing to agree to regarding the matter on the nationality of those Koreans.
Second, with regard to the wording "...including decedents of the said Korean." in Article 1, it is the position of the Japanese Government to consider in this agreement the legal status of only those Koreans who have resided in Japan since prior to the end of World War II. Therefore, the above mentioned phrase concerning the decedents of those Koreans should be deleted from Article 1.
Mr. KATSUNO (Cont'):
Third, Paragraph 1 of Article 2, should be deleted from the article with the same reason as stated in connection with the Preamble. Also, with regard to Paragraph 2, Article 2, we do not consider it necessary to have the stipulation in the agreement, as such is taken for granted in the light of the International Private Law.
Fourth, with regard to Paragraph 1, Article 3 in which a stipulation is set forth for individual submittance of applications for permanent resldence, we consider that there will be difficulties in following the measure as is prescribed in the said paragraph; firstly, it will require a budgetary expense of around ¥60 million for administrative procedural works. Secondly, if we require the applicants to submit together with the applications concerned the registration certificates issued by the Government of the Republic of Korea there might be a number of Koreans who refuse to apply for such registration certificate. In this case, there will be a difficulty in regard to the status of those concerned as a matter of reality, I wonder what would be the view of the Korean side in this connection.
Fifth, with regard to paragraph 2, Article 3, I should like to know the ground for requiring the consultation between the two sides on the conpulsory deportation of a Korean resident in Japan, case by case. p100 for Japan, we would like to apply the provisions of Immigration Control Low along the line of the Japanese proposal on the deportation which was presented to the Korean side. The proposal was presented to the Korean side in order to consult with your side. But, our point is that there might be occasions where consultations on the deportation. would not be successful and bring about no result at all. Therefore, I wish the Korean side would present a concrete view which is more practical, after considering our proposal concerned. Besides, there are about 80,000 Koreans in poverty, and, for them, the Japanese Government annually subsidizes around ￥1.8 billion for their livelihood assistance. I would like to know what measures the Korean side is considering to help them.
The above are about all for today, and I wish to have the answers of the Korean side, if possible, by next meeting.
Mr. CHOI:
I would like to ask you a question in connection with your remarks. Are they questions, observations, or counter proposals, since some of your statements were made in a form of "wish" which I would like to make clear.
Mr. KATSUNO:
I wanted to know the Korean position clear, and, since the Korean proposal is an obsolete one, I wanted to have a more concrete proposal which would not allow controversy afterward, enabling easier implementation thereof. However, they are "questions".
Mr. CHOI:
Though you say it is" obsolete" our proposal was based on reality and it was presented to this committee in the belief that the proposal is most suited to meet the situation. Therefore, we are surprised to hear from you that it is "obsolete", and I regret your remarks which could be construed as "not constructive"
Though we would, of course, answer your questions after your complete questionnare including those on property rights and occupations was presented to us with a view to giving our overall views thereon, I would like to make comments on your view in connection with the wordings of "necessity to affirm the nationality of Koreans residing ...." in the preamble. We have come through a thorough discussions on the matter during the previous Talks, and no objection was raised from your side concerning the matter. Therefore, I can not but be surprised to hear such comment from you. I wonder whether your side has changed its mind or not.
Mr. KATSUNO:
Since we consider that more importance should be placed on such matter as the legal status and treatment of those Koreans who have resided in Japan since prior to the end of the World War II, and that the agreement should be more logical one, we simply took the position that such formal matter as the affirmation of the nationality should be deleted from the structure of the agreement.
Mr. CHOI:
Though I do not intend to make any arguement here today as I reserved my right to make detailed comment on your remarks later, I have to state that the affirmation of the nationality as expressed in the preamble of the draft agreement is not to decide a new thing, but to affirm or confirm a fact as it is and it is considered to be practical to insert the wording under reference in the preamble of an agreement. I can hardly understand why you are opposed to the matter.
Mr. KATSUNO:
What is more important to us in the agreement is to set forth. a stipulation regarding the deportation with more detailed and practicable descriptions, since deportation is as closely related to the extent of the status and treatment of Korean residents in Japan. Relations between them are something like two sides of a coin.
Mr. CHOI:
It should be understood that the prime importance of the pending affair lies in the necessity of giving the Korean residents status and treatment with which they can live in peace in Japan, which is essential in adjusting Korea-Japan relations.
Mr. CHOI (Cont'):
If we succeed in fixing the status and treatment of Koreans in Japan, there will be a considerable decrease in the number of the so-called troubles. I hope you will understand that the fixing of residence right of Koreans, etc is a fundamental thing. I do not think it is reasonable for you to be so enthusiastic about the "deportation" problem only. It is also my desire that you will realise which is the fundamental thing to be settled first of all.
Besides, if we could arrive at an agreement in this regard, I think that the matters concerning the deportation would easily be worked out. I would like to add that the matters concerning the property rights and occupations are as well important as other matters. Therefore I would like to have your views on those points as soon as possible.
Mr. KATSUNO:
We will try to give our views on those points at the next meeting.
Mr. CHOI:
Now, as to the next meeting, how about to meet on November 3 (Monday)?
I wish to remind you that I reserved my right to make comment on your remarks point by point after listening to your view on the whole of our proposal.
Mr. KATSUNO:
Since November 3 is a Japanese national holiday, I propose to meet at 3 p.m. on November 5 (Wednesday) on a temporary basis.
Mr. CHOI.:
No objection.
(Before the meeting was adjomed, the Committee agreed to the joint press release which reads: "The Committee continued sub-stantial discussions on the legal status and treatment of Korean residents in Japan, and it was tentatively decided that next meeting would be held at 3:00 p.m. on November 5, 1958.)

- The end -