MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS PRESS RELEASE
At the first Korea-Japan overall talks held in 1951, the Republic of Korea requested Japan to settle the Korean claims against her and, as a basis of discussion, presented an "Outline of the property and Claims Settlement Agreement." Japan, however, responded to this request with the presentation of "Basis Principles of the Agreement Concerning the Disposition of Property and Claims", wherein she asserted her claims to the right of Japan and of Japanese nationals in property within the Republic of Korea.
It was beyond any doubt that the japanese assertion of claims against Korea was totally unfounded. All right, title and interest of Japan and of Japanese nationals in property on or since August 9, 1945, was vested in and owned by the United States Military Government in Korea by virtue of the Ordnance No.33 of that Government dated November 6, 1945, retroactively from September 25, 1945, and thereafter transferred to the Republic of Korea through the "Korea-U.S. Agreement on Initial Financial and Property Settlement" signed on September 11, 1948. Japan hereself recognized the validity of the disposition of Japanese property by the American authorities in Korea in Article 4 (b) of the Treaty of Peace with Japan.
Despite that the japanese claims against Korea was groundless beyond any doubt, Japan stood on a distorted interpretation and insisted that she still retained the right to assert the claims with respect to the Japanese private properties in Korea, leaving the positions of the both sides sharply in conflict.
Hence, the United States, one of the drafters of the Peace Treaty with Japan, was requested to express her position on the matter. In a note to the Ambassador of Korea of April 29, 1952, the United States State Department stated its position to the effect that (1) by virtue of Article 4 (b) of the Treaty of Peace with claims against Korea cannot be asserted by Japan, (2) Article 4 (b) of the Treaty is relevant to Article 4 (a) of the same treaty.
Despite that the United States, one of the drafters of the Peace Treaty, gave such interpretation, Japan continued to assert her claims against Korea up to the third Korea-Japan talks. Japan, however, finally agreed, on December 31, 1957, at the end of the preliminary negotiations for the holding of the fourth Korea-Japan talks, to accept the interpretation given in a United States note dated December 31, 1957, which gave supplementary explanation on the above-mentioned U.S. note of 1952.
The gist of the U.S. note dated December 31, 1957, the full text of which is attached hereto, are : (1) Valid claim against Korea cannot be asserted by Japan (2) Korean claims against Japan are left to the agreement between Korea and Japan (3) The determination of the extent to which Korean claims against Japan should be considered to be satisfied by the disposition of Japanese property in accordance with the ordinance No.33 of the U.S. Military Government in Korea is also left to the agreement between the two countries.
Further, with respect to this U.S. note of December 31, 1957, it was clearly understood by the two Governments that "the said U.S. statement does not signify the reciprocal renunciation of the property claims" in the "Agreed Minutes" initialed on the representatives of the two Governments on December 31, 1957. The part of the said "Agreed Minutes" relations to the U.S. note and the Korean claims to be settled at the Korea-Japan overall talks reads as follow:
Excerpt from "Agreed Minutes" on December 31, 1957
Minister for Foreign Affairs of Japan:
In such case, the Japanese side has no objection to discussing for settlement such Korean claims with sincerity.
Minister for Foreign Affairs of Japan:
I understand that with respect to the "Statement of the U.S. Position on the Interpretation of Article 4 of the Japanese Peace Treaty with Respect to the Korean-Japanese Claims Settlement" dated December 31, 1957, the Government of the Republic of Korea is also of the same opinion with the said statement. I further understand that the said U.S. Statement does not signify the reciprocal renunciation of the property claims.
Chief of the Korean Mission in Japan:
It is also my understanding.