STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
KOREA-JAPAN CONFERENCE

Summary Record of the Fourth Plenary Session

1. Date, time and place:
March 24th, 1952 10:10 hours-11:50 hours
2. Conferees:
All members of both Delegations, except Mr. Iguchi, Mr. Nishimura, Mr. Murakami, Mr. Ishida and Mr. Kawasaki, were present.
3. Proceedings:
(1) There were made summary reports of three committees of Korea-Japan Conference (Basic Relations Committee, Claims Committee, Fisheries Committee) as per annex I, II, III.
(2) It was agreed that the Korean draft report of Claims committee should be produced to the sub-committee for further study.
(3) The Japanese Delegation made its reply on the following questions raised by the Korean Delegation:
a. Asked whether Japan recognizes all provisions of the Peace Treaty, the Japanese Delegation said, “Of course, the fundamental spirit of respecting all provisions of the said Treaty admits no doubt.”
b. Asked if Japan recognizes and respects the USAMGIK Ordinance No. 33, the Japanese Delegation replied, “Of course”.
c. Questioned whether Japan recognizes paragraph (b) of the Article 4 in the Peace Treaty indicating the USAMGIK Ordinance No. 33, the Japanese Delegation said, “It is based upon paragraph (b) of the Article 4 in the Peace Treaty that Japanese recognizes the said Military Ordinance No. 33.”
d. Asked if Japan claims jurisdiction over any part of Korea or any physical assets in Korea, the Japanese Delegation made its reply, “Japan has its claims over Japanese physical assets in Korea.”
e. Questioned whether or not Japan claims jurisdiction over any part of Korea, the Japanese Delegation stated, “Japan does not claim any jurisdiction over the so-called administrative or judicial powers as the national power, but has the final claims on physical assets to be recognized by the international law.”
Then, the Korean Delegation requested the Japanese Delegation to explain in particular an example of physical assets in Korea and Japanese Delegation made an explanation as follows:
“Japan has its claims to any property other than disposed by the US Military Government in Korea within the scope recognized by the international law and wants to confirm and recover the status quo over any dispositions made not by the U.S. Military Government but by the Government of the Republic of Korea.”
In this connection, the Korean Delegation raised question on whether Japan recognizes the said Military Ordinance No. 33, as an authentic directive, the Japanese Delegation answered, “The legal character of Japanese property in Korea should be decided in accordance with the international law and in connection with paragraphs (b) and (a) of the Article 4 in the Peace Treaty. Japan recognizes the validity of dispositions made by the U.S. Military Government and has no intention to dispute on the validity thereof. Japan is unable to construe the validity of disposition made by the United stated Military Government as having been beyond the scope of the international law.”
f. Asked whether Japan recognizes the Potsdam Declaration, the Japanese Delegation said, “Of course”.
g. Asked what part of the said Military Ordinance No. 33 is considered to be a violation of the international law, the Japanese Delegation stated, “The Ordinance does not violate the principle of the international law if construed, as the Japanese Delegation does, pursuant to the principle of international law, for the Ordinance is a directive issued by the Occupation authorities.”
h. The Korean Delegation expressed its view that, unless Japan withdraws its claims over Japanese physical assets in Korea, this conference would not bring out any results. The Japanese Delegation showed its great regret, saying that they felt it regrettable not to be able to withdraw their legal views since it was considered to be their mission to realize the possible results in this conference, but they had the intention to lay the foundation of friendly relations between the Republic of Korea and Japan by solving various pending problems.
i. Upon the statement of the Korean Delegation that it was unreasonable for Japan to claim not only for Japanese property in Korea but also for compensation of Japanese property damages resulted from the Korean war or recovery of their status quo, the Japanese Delegation clarified its position asfollows:
“1. The USAMGIK Ordinance No. 33 provides that “the title to -- property-- is hereby vested in and owned by the Military Government in Korea”, but this provision does not imply anything which may override the provisions of the so-called Hague Regulation Concerning the Law and Customs of Land Warfare which prescribes that no private property can be confiscated(Article 46). Just as in the case of Enemy Property Acts of every country or the idea of trust in civil law, it is properly concluded that the right of the original owner as the rightful owner still exists, and therefore, though the U.S. Military Government may dispose of its enemy private property as an ccupation force, as a custodian, the original owner must be allowed the claim to the proceeds or fruits of disposition as the rightful owner. This ownership exists continuously regardless of the transfer of the property. Accordingly, this is the particular objective of paragraph (a) of the Article 4 in the Peace Treaty”; and
“2. Concerning the expression of “war damages”, the Japanese proposal positively implies the spirit of relieving the Republic of Korea of legal responsibility for property damages or losses under inevitable circumstances according to the causes therefor.”
j. The Korean Delegation pointed out that claim for compensation of war damages was expressed in the gist of the Japanese explanation on its proposal. The Japanese Delegation stated that, owing to the brief explanation, the Korean Delegation might misunderstand Japan’s position, but Japan’s intention was just as stated above, and proposed to record or write separately as a formal explanation for the purpose of clearing misunderstanding of Korean Delegation. However, the Korean Delegation returned a negative, saying that Japan’s claim was against the United Nations because most of Japanese properties in Korea were destroyed by the United Nations Forces. The Japanese Delegation stated that, as to the said expression, the Korean Delegation seemed to adhere to the word “war”, but it did not imply the United Nations Forces, and that the Japanese proposal was written so as to give the outlet for elieving from responsibility for irresponsible war damages. And the Japanese Delegation proposed again to write separately its view as a formal explanation. However, the Korean Delegation said that it was essential to solve all pending problems with friendly spirit in the earliest possible time, and it would be proper to submit this problem to the sub-committee and to find something in common with each other through the detailed study thereon. In addition, the Korean Delegation desired that all sub-committee members should abandon their claims over Korea for all problems to be easily settled. The Japanese Delegation responded that both sides should discuss technically without adhering to the fundamental theory of legality.
k. Asked whether or not “the Potsdam Declaration” accepted by Japan has the legal restraint, the Japanese delegation replied, “Japan accepted the said Declaration and has faithfully fulfilled all its provisions.” The Korean Delegation continued to state, “Japan accepted the Cairo Declaration as quoted in the Potsdam Declaration. According to this Declaration, Japan recognized that she seized Korea and other areas of Orient, and stole their properties, and seizure and looting are illegal acts. Accordingly, it is concluded, that, as seizure and looting are legally invalid, all acts taken by Japan in Korea are ineffective, and also the Treaty of Annexation between Korea and Japan is so. Therefore, all properties acquired by Japan or its nationals in Korea are null and void. It is believed, from the said viewpoint, that the USAMGIK Ordinance No. 33 has come out as a method of disposition of all Japanese properties after the World War II. Korean people have also the same view as stated above, and so the Japanese Delegation, realizing such a feeling of the Korean people, should friendly discuss on all problems. ”Japanese Delegation made a reply, “Japan has faithfully fulfilled all provisions of the Potsdam Declaration. The said facts have been recognized by the world countries, as a result of which the Peace Treaty has been concluded. It is therefore desired that the Korean Delegation realize the facts that Japan has earnestly complied with the said Declaration and that she is desiring to establish the future amicable relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea in accordance with Article 2, 4, etc. of the Peace Treaty.”
4. It was decided that the next (5th) session should be reconvened from 10:00 hours, March 31st (Monday), 1952 at the same conference room.