Tokyo, November 12, 1958

GIST OF TALKS ELEVENTH SESSTON COMMITTEE ON LEGAL STATUS OF KOREAN RESIDENTS IN JAPAN
1. Time mad places: 10:30 a.m.-11:30 a.m.: on November 10,Rm. 411, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Japanese Government
2. Conferees:
Korean Side: Mr. CHOI, Kyu Hah
Mr. EA, Chai Hang
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. HIRAZUKA
Mr. SHIMIZU, Shiro
Mr. HASEGAWA, Shinzo
Mr. NAKAGAWA, Toyokichi
Mr. NAGAHASHI, Hisa
Mr. SUGANUMA, Kiyoshi
Mr. TSUCHIYA, Minao
Mr. IKEBE, Ken
3. Gist of Taks:
Mr. KATSUNO:
At the previous session when we presented questionnare regarding the Korean proposal, we reserved questions on property rights and occupations till today's session. Accordingly, I would like to submit, today, questions concerning them in connection with the Korean proposal.
1. Under Article 4 of the Korean proposal, it is stipulated that "a Korean resident in Japan shall be entitled to the rights on property enjoyed by him in Japan at the time of the coming into force of the present Agreement ....." Also, under Article 5, which reads it part: "a Korean resident in Japan shall be entitled to engage in the occupation followed by him at the time of the coming into force of the present Agreement .....". Concerning the application of the above two stipulations, there is a special stipulation in paragraph 3 of Article, The Korean side also presented at the previous session the reservation item No.3 which is related thereto. Now I would like to know what will be the exact meaning of Articles 4 and 5 in their relations with paragraph 3, Article 7 and the reservation item No.3. Would you give explanations in detail according to special cases supposed ?
2. With regard to paragraph 1 of Article 6, in which it was stipulated that "....... neither customs duties nor any other charges shall be imposed upon him in relation to any movables...", the Japanese delegation takes a position that such immunity from duties will only be considered for a certain limited period, and not for an indefinite period.
3. Regarding paragraph 2 of the same article, may we understand that the question on the "amount of money to be remitted" is included in the matters to be "negotiated separately"?
4. As regards "the types and quantity of movables to be taken away .....", in Article 6 (1) I would like to have the detailed ideas on the part of the Korean side, if it has them in mind, and I would like to suggest that a special working party be set up to conduct study thereon and on the matters to be "negotiated separately" in the paragraph 2 of Article 6.
Mr. HIRAGA will follow me with questions regarding Articles 1,2, and 3 mainly in connection with the technical matters concerning the three articles.
Mr. CHOI:
Our side is ready to express our views in reply to the questions your side submitted at the previous meeting since the Japanese side finished its overall questions. Therefore, how do you think it that Mr. HIRAGA would present questions after I finish my answers ?
Mr. KATSUNO:
That will be all right.
Mr. CHOI:
I would like to remind you that my answers will be put forward in the order as the Japanese questions were made.
(Question 1): The Japanese side commented that the Korean proposal was "obsolete", and it gave the Japanese side a disappointment, especially in the fact that the items which the Japanese strongly requested to include in the draft agreement in the previous conferences are totally missing from the proposal.
(Reply): For the Korean side, it presented the proposal to the committee because it believed that the proposal was a most realistic one which could meet any new situation in this regard. The Korean side can not but regret the Japanese description of our proposal as "disappointing". I wonder if the Japanese side said so with any counter proposal in its mind?
(Question 2): The Japanese side opined that the phrase which reads ".... the necessity to affirm the nationality of Koreans .." be deleted from the preamble of the proposal, with the reasons that, for Japan, the Koreans residing in Japan had become aliens after the coming into force of the San Francisco Peace Treaty and that the problem of the nationality is a domestic affair.
(Reply): The Korean side would not spend time to explain the obvious logics, as it believes the Japanese side knows very well the fact that there exists a special background regarding the Koreans residing in Japan since before the and of the World War II, which is different from that of other aliens. Since it is necessary to have an agreement on the legal status, Including the problem of the nationality, of those Koreans in enabling them to live in Japan continuously and without any anxiety, it is a matter of course and absolute necessity that both countries affirm the nationality of these Koreans. It is quite difficult to govern the status of Koreans residing in Japan merely by the so-called general principle that the problem of the nationality belongs to a domestic affair under international law.
Therefore, it Is rather natural and necessary for both countries to affirm their nationality, not to speak of the existence of the international precedent. The setting forth of a concrete stipulation in an international agreement regarding the problem would be neceesary in order to prevent possible disputes and troubles between the both parties. Especially in view of the past practices that decision or affirmation of the nationality had been made between the countries concerned in connection with the natioality problem of the minority races after World Wars I and II, it is not to be considered as "unnecessary" to provide, in an agreement between Korea and Japanese article affirming the nationality of the Korean residents in japan. Also, though the Japanese side says that the Korean residents in Japan lost "the Japanese nationality" upon the first coming into force of the San Francisco Peace Treaty, the Korean side does not take it that way,and, therefore. it becomes more necessary to have such a stipulation as confirmation of nationality of Korean residents in the proposed agreement.
(Question 3): The Japanese side questioned about the Korean position in regard to Article 1 of the proposal, that the descendents of the Korean residents in Japan shall be included in the "Korean Residents."
(Reply): There might be a number of Koreans who were born in Japan after the end of World War II, and that, among them, quite a number of them might be holders of particular rights on properties. It is also natural that the descendants should be entitled to manage their livings at the places where their parents were settled down. Accordingly, the Korean side strongly takes the position that the stipulation concerned should be included in the proposed agreement.
(Question 4): The Japanese side opined that, on the same ground as in connection with the preamble of the Korean proposal, Paragraph 1 of Article 2 be deleted from the proposal.
(Reply): The view of the Korean side, as was explained thereon in item 2 above, will answer the Japanese question on the point. I would like to make it clear again that this paragraph is absolutely necessary in the proposed draft agreement.
(Question 5): With regard to Paragraph 2 of Article 2, the Japanese side took the position that, since such is clear in the light of the international law, the same paragraph is not necessary in the proposed agreement.
(Reply): It may be true that there have been discrepancies of opinions between the two countries regarding the "personal status" of Koreans and Japanese in relation to each other under the circumstances that no agreement has hitherto existed between the Republic of Korea and japan regarding the legal status of the Koreans concerned. Therefore, the Korean side thought that, by inserting the stipulation in the proposed agreement, it would help preventing any future dispute regarding their personal legal status, because such stipulation would bring about the legal effect to the existing situation in relation to personal status of Koreans and Japanese with each other. In the meantime, I would like to know if the Japanese view is based on a premise that such is unnecessary in the light of the international private law, or that such stipulation would bring about positive harms of any kind?
(Question 6): The Japanese side held it that about ¥ 60 million would be required from the budget of the Japanese Government to implement the Paragraph 1 of Article 3.
(Reply): it is advisable that a most economic, effective and time-saving measure be considered after the consultation between both sides. however, in this connection was there any alternate plan on the Japaneae side, when it pointed out such "difficulty" in connection with the budgetary measure of the Japanese Government ?
(Question 7): The Japanese side anticipated that there might be some Koreans who would not take procedures under the stipulations of Paragraph 1 of Article 3, and in this connection, asked for the opinions of the Korean side on the measures to be employed to those Koreans whose "status is not clear."
(Reply): The main purpose for the conclusion of the subject agreement is to furnish the Koreans concerned with legal guarantee and ciroumstances in which they can manage peaceful livings in Japan under a firm legal status of the Koreans residing in Japan. If such guarantee is made legally, there would be few Koreans who refuse to take such privilege. Therefore, the Japanese postulation in this regard can not be considered as justifiable. I would like to know why the Japanese side raised such question ?
With regard to the problem of "deportation", the Japanese side seems to be considering this problem with unrealistic assumption as was mentioned above (item 7). The Korean side takes the strong view that, if a guarantee is set up for those Korean residents in Japan to lead lives in peace in Japan, there won't occur such unhappy incident as "deportation" at least go often as the Japanese side thinks. I would like to invite the attention of the Japanese side to the fact that the main purpose with which we meet at this committee is to find ways and means for the Koreans residing in Japan to allow them to live a stabilished life. If the problem of "deportation" is to be discussed, it should go after discussion of fundamental problems. Therefore, it is vary difficult for the Korean side to comprehend the real intention of the Japanese side when it asserts that the problem of "deportation" is a most important problem, putting things upside-down. If "deportation" is to be made by an unilateral action, permanent residence granted to the Koreans concerned under due agreement would in fact result in a meaningless thing. Therefore the prime teak for us to work on is to create an atmosphere in which such an unhappy situation as "deportation" would not take place, and to do so, we believe, is a constructive way. In case deportation of a Korean resident is necessitated, it must not be made without due consultation with the Korean Government, and consultation is a necessary and proper measure in the light of the permanent residence right. As to the view of the Korean side in regard to the "criteria" of the deportation which was presented by your side, we made it clear at the 7th session held on October 6th that Korean side reserved the expression of its view for the time being.
(Question 8): The Japanese side raised a question refering to the matter that the Japanese Government is subsidizing annually about 11.8 billion to around 80 thousand Koreans residing in Japan who are in extreme poverty.
(Reply): It is the view of the Korean side that the fact that there are many Koreans in Japan who are in extreme poverty should be attributed to the uncertainty of their legal status and treatment in Japan, Therefore, if such necessary conditions are successfully provided for their peaceful living in Japan by solving such pending problems as their legal status and treatment, the number of those Koreans in poverty would be much decreased. Further, in view of the fact that the majority of those in poverty were forcibly taken to Japan during and before the world War II as drafted workers, the Japanese Government should assume the whole responsibility for their present difficult situations. Therefore, we cannot but hold it that even the amount of ￥1.8 billion is not sufficient to aid such people. But, if the Japanese side is ready to settle the problem with sincerity, feeling its responsibility for their present difficulties, we would be as well ready to study the problem of their repatriation to Korea.
The above are about all, since the questions the Japanese side has presented at the previous session concerned mostly principles, our answers have been made generally, I hope the future discussions on the basis of my answers above would bring about a fruitful result to the works we are dealing with at this committee.
Regarding the question the Japanese side submitted today on Articles 4, 5, 6, and 7(3), we would present our answer at a future session, after study thereon. Believer, for reference, as it would help us in making our answer to the Japanese questions, I would like to ask you if the Korean residents in Japan are receiving different treatments from the other aliens in general in connection with their property rights and occupations or if they are in receipt of 'national treatment' in this regard.
Mr. KATSUNO:
Mr. HIRAGA's questionnaire will be presented at the next session, since it is rather late today. We would study your answers presented today. The most important impression I got from them is that there were discrepancies in the views of the two sides, and we would try to understand your view point after studing thereon.
Regarding Articles 4 and 5, we have merely asked about the interpretation thereof your side, and we did not refer to actual treatment of Korean residents in Japan. As to the actual treatment concerned, I cannot say anything before we actually check it thoroughly.
Mr. CHOI:
As regards to the treatment on the property rights and occupations which Korean residents in Japan presently anjoy, I want to know what kind of treatment is given to the Koreans now.
Now, when shall we meet again ? I hope we meet again as soon as passible.
Mr. KATSUNO:
I would like to propose that we meet at 3 p.m. on November 17, 1958 (Monday), sinces our schedule is tied up untill that date.
Mr. CHOI
If so, no objection.
Remarks
Before the meeting was adjourned, the committee agreed to the Joint Press Release which reads: "The committee continued discussions on the legal status and treatment of Korean residents in Japan, and it was decided that the next meeting would be held at 3:00 p.m. on November 17, 1958."

- The end -