ANNEX I

TRANSLATION

ADDRESS DELIVERED BY THE CHIEF REPRESENTATIVE OF THE REPUBLIC OF KOREA AT THE FIRST SESSION OF THE PROPERTY CLAIMS SUB-COMMITTEE OF THE KOREA-JAPAN CONFERENCE

 

I am very glad that both Korean and Japanese representatives are here together and are about to commence negotiations at this meeting as a division of the Korea-Japan Conference in order to solve the problems concerning properties and claims still pending between Korea and Japan.
Speaking of the problems of properties and claims, they seem to be, at a glance, very much complicated but actually are very clear and simple. Because the principles for solving them have already been manifested by the provisions of Article 4 of the Peace Treaty with Japan which was concluded in San Francisco last autumn. In accordance with the said article of the Peace Treaty, the Government of Japan has recognized the dispositions of properties belonging to Japan and Japanese nationals made by the United States Army Military Government in Korea, that is to say, it has recognized the legal validity of the USAMGIK Ordinance No. 33. The measures taken by this Ordinance No. 33 with regard to the dispositions of the Japanese properties are very similar to those taken by Article 14 of the Peace Treaty relevant to the dispositions of Japanese properties in the Allied Powers.
Then, what are the reasons why the Republic of Korea, a country liberated from Japan, and the Allied Powers which won the victory over the war with Japan are, in similar measures, entitled to seize the possessionship of the properties of Japanese Government and/or her nationals? The success of this conference depends upon being fully aware of this question. If you Japanese representatives participating in this meeting have no correct understanding of this historical reality, this conference will continue to be at deadlock, and if you acknowledge the significance of this point, this conference will proceed very smoothly.
The Republic of Korea have no intention to request Japan for the fulfillment of all her claims which may be urged by our unpleasant past memories arising from 36 years of Japanese occupation, but will request claims only for the properties which legally belong to Korea and which must be fulfilled for the sake of Korea’s existence in the future. Therefore, I sincerely hope that the Japanese side will wisely and reasonably deal with the fair-minded and reasonable request to be made by the Korean side. How can we hope for the establishment of a friendly relationship between our two countries without solving such problems on an intelligent and reasonable basis?