November 11, 1959

GIST OF TALKS TWENTY-SECOND SESSION COMMITTEE ON PROBLEMS OF KOREAN RESIDENTS IN JAPAN
1. Time and Place: 11:00 - 11:50 a.m., November 2, 1959, at Room 320, Foreign Ministry, Japanese Government
2. Conferees:
Korean side: Dr. YU Chin-O
Mr. LEE Chai Hang
Mr. CHIN Pil Shik
Mr. OHM Young Dal
Mr. LEE Won Dal
Mr. KWON Tae Woong
Japanese side: Mr. KATSUNO Yasusuke
Mr. HIRAGA Kenta
Mr. MIYAKE Kijiro
Mr. HASEGAWA Shinzo
Mr. MORI Junzo
Mr. HIRATSUKA Nenoichi
Mr. NAKAJIMA Toshijiro
Mr. NAKAGAWA Toyokichi
Mr. NAGAHASHI
Mr. IKEBE Ken
3. Gist of Talks:
Dr. Yu
At the previous meeting, the Japanese side stated its views on the question of Korean residents who will return to the ROK. At today's meeting, I would like to listen to Japanese views on the question of Korean residents who will remain in Japan.
Mr. Hiraga
So far, the Japanese views have been stated concerning the Korean proposal of last October. Our views having been stated on the provisions of articles 1 and 2 of the proposal, I am now going to refer to the rest of articles at today's meeting.
With reference to article 3 which stipulates the permanent residence and deportation of Korean residents, the
Japanese side is of the opinion that they have inseparable relation each other. Therefore, the Japanese government has readiness to permit permanent residence to Korean residents in Japan by means of simple procedures, provided that the ROK government accepts deportation of the Korean residents who have violated Japanese laws or the Koreans who have illegally entered Japan.
Moreover, I make it clear that the Japanese side is ready, in case of Korean residents, to relax the deportation criteria, as compared with aliens in general, for some years after the coming into force of an agreement which is now under negotiation between the two countries.
The extent of how far the deportation criteria be relaxed for Korean residents was stated in our paper which was delivered to the Korean side on July 11, 1958. Any answer thereto, which we still expect to have, has not been yet presented by the Korean side. However, it is our government's stand that the Korean government should accept the deportation of such Korean residents whose continued residence in Japan cannot be permitted because of vicious nature of the offense they may involve, and the deportation of Korean illegal entrants.....
・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・
Let me allow to make some corrections of what I have just stated. I have mistakingly stated due to my wrong memory. The whole criteria of deportation provided in the Japanese domestic law were covered in the above-mentioned paper of July 11, 1958. Repeatedly speaking, the following six categories, which correspond to the international practice, are listed as the deportation criteria:
1) Person who are sentenced guilty by courts.
2) Person who engage in relevant business to prostitution.
3) Person who render assistance to illegal entrants.
4) Leprous patients, person of mental disorder or person of poverty who are taken care of by public organization.
5) Person who stay illegally in excess of the term of residence
6) Person who, by act of violence, breach the Constitution or laws, or disturb public order.
However, it has been our government's stand, and will remain same for some years to come, not to deport Korean residents only because of their poverty.
It is possible to treat, by virtue of the provisions of the Peace Treaty, Korean residents in Japan as aliens in general. But the Japanese side admits it reasonable to accord them special treatment for some years to come in view of their historical backgrounds. I make it clear that the Japanese government has readiness to accord special treatment to Korean residents for some years to come, if an agreement be concluded as a result of the negotiation under way now between the two countries.
I hope that views of the Korean side be presented on this matter.
Articles 4 and 5 are related to the occupation and property rights of Korean residents, which are not entitled to enjoy by aliens in general. There are few occupations, from government officials, which are prohibited to be enjoyed by aliens in general by Japanese domestic laws. 'Piolot' may be only occupation which is prohibited to aliens. The investigation of the Japanese side revealed that there is no Korean resident who holds such occupation or enjoys such property rights at present, which are prohibited to be enjoyed by aliens. Therefore, I think it unnecessary to insert such provisions of articles 4 and 5 in the proposed Agreement, because they have no practical meanings.
With reference to the provisions which stipulate that any occupation or property rights enjoyed by Korean residents at the time of the coming into force of the Peace Treaty be retroactively recognized, the Japanese side hardly understands the meanings and possible outcome of such provisions. However, the Japanese side makes it clear that such provisions are not acceptable because they might cause confusion in the order of the Japanese domestic laws.
As regards article 6, which stipulates the property to be taken home by repatriates, the substantial points of the Japanese views are not different from what was stated at the previous meeting in connection with the proposed mass repatriation. In case of individual return of Korean residents to the ROK, no facilities such as billeting, medicine, etc., will be offered by the Japanese side.
What was stated above covers the whole points of the Japanese views on the Korean proposal of last October.
Dr. Yu
Though the Korean side has its own different views on what was stated by you, I withhold to express them, because I intend, at today's meeting, to listen to Japanese views.
However, I have one question. You have just contended that no Korean residents, according to the Japanese investigation, hold any occupation or enjoy any property rights which are not allowed to aliens in general. However, as far as I remember, there was a considerable number of Korean residents who held such occupation or enjoyed such property rights. If there is none of such Korean residents at present, I want to know how and for what they have lost such occupation or such property rights.
Mr. Hiraga
The fact was found by our inquiry to the ministries concerned. I think that the Japanese side has never stated that there was a considerable number of such Korean residents.
With reference to the mining right which is not allowed to be held by aliens, some provisions of the Japanese mining industry law was revised upon the entering into force of the Peace Treaty. According to the revision, the mining right enjoyed by Korean residents at the time of the coming into force of the Peace Treaty was continuously recognized for the following two years in anticipation of the conclusion of an agreement as a result of the Japan-ROK talks then under way. However, unfortunately no agreement was reached within the two years. If there had been any Korean resident who enjoyed mining right at that time, the mining right might have been transfered, after the elapse of the two years, to the national treasury of the Japanese government.
It is also conceivable that the Korean resident concerned disposed of the mining right within the two years. Actually, no mining right of Korean residents, according to the investigation of the Japanese authorities, has ever been transferred to the Japanese national treasury. Accordingly, the mining right of Korean residents enjoyed at the time of the coming into force of the Peace Treaty was lost by means of free deposition within the limited two years.
As to the occupation, apart from government officials, few occupation, except piolot, are prohibited to be held by aliens. I think that there is no Korean resident who engages in piolot.
Dr. Yu
With respect to the occupation, I remember that there was a considerable number of Korean residents who engage in teachers or served as local officials. If they are now dismissed, I want to know how and for what they were dismissed.
Mr. Hiraga
There is no discrimination of nationality in the employment of teachers, and no Korean resident has ever been dismissed for mere reason that he is a Korean resident.
Dr. Yu
Views of the Korean side on what was stated by your side will be presented at later meeting.
Remarks
1. The date for next meeting would be decided later on by mutual consultations.
2. The following press release was agreed upon: At today's meeting, substantial discussions were continuously made on the repatriation problem of Korean residents to the ROK and others.

- End -