주메뉴 바로가기내용 바로가기하단 바로가기
상세검색
  • 디렉토리 검색
  • 작성·발신·수신일
    ~
한일회담외교문서

법적지위위원회 제16차 회의요록

  • 날짜
    1958년 12월 22일
  • 문서종류
    회의록
  • 형태사항
    영어 
Tokyo, December 22, 1958
GIST OF TALKS FIFTEENTH SESSION COMMITTEE ON LEGAL STATUS OF KOREAN RESIDENTS IN JAPAN
1. Time and Place: 10:30-12:10, December 15, 1958, at Room 411, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Japanese Government
2. Conferees:
Korean side: Mr. CHOI Kyu Hah
Mr. EA Chai Hang
Mr. CHIN Pil Shik
Mr. ROH Jae Won
Mr. OHM Young Dal
Japanese side: Mr. KATSUNO Yasusuke
Mr. HIRAGA Kanta
Mr. NAKAGAWA Toyokichi
Mr. HASEGAWA Shinzo
Mr. SHIMIZU Shiro
Mr. SUGANUMA Kiyoshi
Mr. IKEBE Ken
3. Gist of Talks:
Mr. Katsuno:
I wonder if there is anything for your side to say at today's session. Our side has expressed some of our views in the course of putting forth questions regarding the Korean draft agreement throughout previous meetings of the committee. I think it is advisable to restart the committee's works in the new year in a better atmosphere rather than making hot discussion on the legal status problems of the Korean residents, at the year-end season.
Mr. Choi:
As to the conducting of the committee's works in a better atmosphers, the Korean side would not raise any objection to your remarks as the Korean side desires to proceed smoothly with the committee's. works. As to your remarks on a temporary recess of the committee meeting during the new-year season, I am not yet in receipt of any instructions from the higher level thereon. Therefore I think we have to continue our works of this committee, unless otherwise instructed.
Mr. Katsuno:
Then, I would like to present official views of the Japanese side on the Korean draft agreement. I am not ready to give them in writing at today's meeting. I also would like to make it clear in that connection that they will represent the basic views and outlines of principles that the Japanese side holds, and that any expressions of mine in this regard would be subject to correction when necessary.
In some points, the Japanese views might be considered as much different from these of the Korean side, but, I would like to hear the Korean opinion thereon in future sessions.
1) With regard to the preamble of the draft agreement, the Japanese side proposes the phrase "the necessity to affirm the nationality of Koreans ..." to be deleted therefrom, as the Japanese side does consider it neither appropriate nor necessary to stipulate the matter in an international agreement.(Although it would not raise objection to the Korean view that they are nationals of the Republic of Korea.)
2) As regards Article I, the Japanese side would not raise any Objection thereto, except that the phrase "including the descendents..." be deleted.
3) With regard to Article 2, first, the Paragraph 1 shall be wholly deleted under the same reason as stated regarding the preamble, and, secondly, the whole of Paragraph 2 is proposed to be deleted, as the same paragraph is not necessary as was already explained so by Mr. Hiraga.
4) With regard to Article 3, first, the conception of the wording "permanent residence" is the legal one according to tee scope of the Japanese laws concerned, but not physical one; secondly, instead of taking complicated measures, simpler procedures for granting "permanent residence" shall be sought; thirdly, as the problem of deportation and that of the permanent residence are two sides of a thing, the Japanese side proposes to deal with the problem of permanent residence together with that or deportation without leaving the latter problem for future consultations, with a consideration that deportation criteria to be applied to the Koreans in question will be less rigid one than that applicable to ordinary aliens.
Under the above conditions, all the Korean residents will be granted permanent residence.
In connection with the problem of deportation, the Japanese side wishes to have an early reply from the Korean side to its proposal regarding "deportation" criteria made on July 11, 1958 (see HANIIDAE No.1293 of July 14, 1958).
5) As regards Articles 4 and 5, the Japanese side proposes that Reservation Item 3 and paragraph 3 of Article 7 be withdrawn. In that case, though the said Articles would not be of substantial meaning, the Japanese side would not object to the inclusion of the articles, if the Korean side insists on including the articles in the agreement for the caution's sake.
6) Concerning Article 6, the Japanese side takes the position that the immunity stipulated in paragraph 1 shall be accorded for a limited period, for example, of 3(three)years, and, regarding Paragraph 2, limitation shall be set on the amount to be remitted, and that the procedures for remitting money and the types, etc of movables referred to in the article under reference shall be arranged through a sub-comaittee before the signing of this agreement.
7) As was proposed above, Paragraph 3 of Article 7 shall be withdrawn.
8) As to the matter concerning the coming into force of this agreement in connection with Paragraph 2 of Article 7, this agreement would follow a relevant from to be decided upon in connection with other agreements to be concluded at the Korea-Japan Overall Talks.
9) With regard to deportation of illegal entrants, the Japanese side holds a position that the Korean side agree, by way of exchange of letters or others, to accept those illegal entrants whom the Japanese Government decides to deport to the Republic of Korea.
10) Having expressed its official views, the Japanese side proposes that the committee enter into article-by-article discussions on the Korean proposal from next session.
Mr. Choi:
At a glance of the Japanese views as expressed here in connection with the Korean draft agreement, I find that there are sane proposals which run counter to some basic points of the said draft agreement. I wonder if the Japanese side would kindly submit to us in writing the main points of the statement it made today, so that we can grasp the exact meaning thereof without any misunderstanding.
Mr. Katsuno:
We may submit the gist of the Japanese views in writing at next session.
Mr. Choi:
I will refrain from making an detailed comment at this session on the statement made by the Japanese side. But, if I am allowed to make my brief remarks thereon, I would like to say a few words.
I think that, if the Japanese side should be well mindful of the historical background of those Koreans who have come to reside in Japan, the Japanese side could place no objection to providing the Korean residents with such conditions as would enable them to manage their peaceful living in Japan from the morel and humanitarian viewpoints as well as from the legal point of view.
Frankly speaking, it is with deep regret and disappointment that the Japanese side has come out with such proposals and views which are far from being reasonable. From the Japanese statement, I can easily observe that the Japanese side is far less interested in furnishing those Koreans with proper situations under which they could live in peace than in working out methods of deporting those Koreans concerned out of Japan. To take an instance, the Japanese side proposes to grant "permanent residence" within the scope of the Japanese domestic laws concerned, only in exchange for a certain stipulation on the deportation of Korean residents.
As regards Article 6, the Japanese side takes position that there should be a limitation of the period during which immunity from any duties on the movables to be taken out of Japan by the repatriates could be considered, and that a ceiling should be set on the amount of money to be remitted by the repatriates. How, then, could I think that the Japanese Government is sincerely considering measures to enable those Koreans to enjoy their property rights with the feeling of security and stability ?
I will refrain from touching upon the matter regarding the deportation of illegal entrants in Japan at this moment. But, I can say at least that, if the Japanese side had the intention and sincerity to settle this matter regarding which an agreement was already made, the matter would easily be settled at this committee.
The Japanese side, in its views, wished to neglect all the important matters for the Korean side such as affirmation of the nationality of Korean residents and stipulations regarding descendents of those Koreans. Further, the problems of "permanent residence" to Korean residents is linked with the deportation problem, on the condition that the conception of the said permanent residence shall be according to the scope of the Japanese domestic laws concerned.
Thus, the substance of the Korean positions in regard to the legal status and treatment of Korean residents in Japan has been lost sight of, according to the Japanese statement. I simply wonder how we could possibly reach an agreement regarding the subject matter on the basis of the Japanese views as sticking to its own domestic laws concerned.
With regard to the conception of "permanent residence," it would be much difficult for both sides to reach an agreement on that matter, if the Japanese side insists only on the application of its one-sided legal conception to a matter to be deciced upon by an international agreement.
In connection with Articles 4 and 5, it is to be greatly regretted that the Japanese side has taken unilateral measures on the property rights, i.e. mining right, and occupations of Korean residents without any due consultations with the Korean side.
Now, I would like to state that the Korean side wishes to withdrew Reservation Item 3 and Paragraph of Article 7, on the condition that the phrases in both Articles 4 and 5 which read "the present Agreement" shall be changed to read "the Treaty of Peace with Japan signed at the city of San Francisco on September 8, 1951."
Mr. Katsuno:
As regards the conception of "permanent residence," it is necessary to define the term in accordance with the Japanese domestic laws concerned. Of course, we would be ready to consider favorable conditions in granting permanent residence.
Mr. Choi:
I must call your attention to the fact that we are here working for the conclusion of an international agreement. If anything is to be defined as a part of an international agreement, it should be done in full consultations between the parties concerned. Therefore, the conception of "permanent residence" is to be decided upon in accordance with the decision to be made at the conference table for such international agreement.
Besides, it should be a basic way of thinking that Korean residents in Japan are those aliens who are under a special situations different from ordinary aliens in general. It is, therefore, difficult for us to understand that the Japanese side is trying to place those Koreans under the same situation as applied to the ordinary aliens.
Mr. Katsuno:
It is regretful that the Korean side thinks as if the Japanese side were aiming at only the deportation of those Koreans, with no intention to consider the peaceful livelihood in Japan of those people. Our request must also be considered as was yours.
Mr. Choi:
According to your view and proposals, our due demands were not favourably considered by the Japanese side. It is the impression that the emphasis was centered on the matter on deportation instead of that of permanent residence in connection with the legal status and treatment of Korean residents in Japan.
So much for today's session, leaving the detailed views on the Japanese statement for future sessions.
Mr. Katsuno:
Let us tentatively decide the date of next meeting at 10:30 a.m. on December 22, 1958.
Mr. Choi:
No objection.
Remark:
Before the meeting was adjourned, both sides agreed to the joint press release which reads "the Committee continued substantial discussions on the legal status and the treatment of Korean residents in Japan, and it was tentatively decided that the next meeting would be held at 10:30 a.m. on December 22, 1958."
- The end -

색인어
이름
CHOI Kyu Hah, EA Chai Hang, CHIN Pil Shik, ROH Jae Won, OHM Young Dal, KATSUNO Yasusuke, HIRAGA Kanta, NAKAGAWA Toyokichi, HASEGAWA Shinzo, SHIMIZU Shiro, SUGANUMA Kiyoshi, IKEBE Ken
지명
the Republic of Korea, Republic of Korea, Japan, Japan, Japan, Japan, Japan, Japan, San Francisco, Japan, Japan, Japan, Japan
관서
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Japanese Government, the Japanese Government, the Japanese Government
문서
HANIIDAE, joint press release
기타
the Treaty of Peace with Japan
오류접수

본 사이트 자료 중 잘못된 정보를 발견하였거나 사용 중 불편한 사항이 있을 경우 알려주세요. 처리 현황은 오류게시판에서 확인하실 수 있습니다. 전화번호, 이메일 등 개인정보는 삭제하오니 유념하시기 바랍니다.

법적지위위원회 제16차 회의요록 자료번호 : kj.d_0005_0080_0410