politics

S Korea court may rule on Japanese firm asset sale in Aug at earliest

21 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© KYODO

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

21 Comments
Login to comment

Koreans would die if they don't constantly attract Japan's attention.

13 ( +18 / -5 )

It's unpaid wages for wartime slave laborers they want. All Japan wants is for denial to work like magic.

-15 ( +4 / -19 )

Extortion. Nothing more, nothing less.

17 ( +20 / -3 )

That is basically a domestic legal issue, which neither Korean nor Japanese government are allowed to meddle in. Both Japanese and Korean government know it very well.

"そのため、個人の請求権は日韓請求権・経済協力協定や国内法で消滅したわけではありません。"

https://www.taro.org/2018/11/%E6%97%A5%E9%9F%93%E8%AB%8B%E6%B1%82%E6%A8%A9%E3%83%BB%E7%B5%8C%E6%B8%88%E5%8D%94%E5%8A%9B%E5%8D%94%E5%AE%9A.php

-11 ( +5 / -16 )

It is a legal issue based on rulings by the Supreme Court.

-14 ( +3 / -17 )

Geez those Koreans just dont give up they will be calling for compensation in 50 years time...

13 ( +17 / -4 )

I feel Koreans show some sense of maturity and this matter should be burried, just like all other war issues.

戦争より前のことが歴史の教科書に書けばいい!21世紀がグローバル化になって、経済協力に集中しようぜぇ。

8 ( +11 / -3 )

S. Korea is a democratic country where all individual civil rights are protected by the law. Even the state can not deprive of civilian's rights. I am not quite sure whether Japanese government can force private companies and civilians to follow their policy, requesting abandonment of citizen's property rights and even their lives, as once shown in Kamikaze during the WWII. In modern S. Korea, it is legally impossible. If any government officials including the president dare to meddle in legal disputes among civilians including the Japanese companies located in S. Korea, they may go to jail, as witnessed lately in the case of the S. Korean former, impeached president, Park.

It is very simple: When in Rome, do as the Romans do.

-13 ( +3 / -16 )

In 1965 South Korea and Japan negotiated a Treaty that covered all past issues. That Treaty includes a clause which calls for arbitration in the event of a difference in interpretation.

Japan has requested Arbitration per that clause, but South Korea has refused.

By refusing, the South Korean government can remain silient on cases such as this one.

Under normal circumtances Japan could file an action against South Korea at the ICJ. However South Korea refuses to recognize ICJ jurisdiction and has not signed the agreement accepting ICJ jurisdiction and compliance.

Seriously, don't see why Japan even bothers with a country like this.

15 ( +18 / -3 )

@SJ

As the government should not meddle in decisions of courts the courts should not ignore agreements between governments (the 1965 Treaty).

And how can a court of SK today apply the present laws of SK on an issue that took place at a time and location when there was no Korea and no Korean laws. It all took place in Japan and Japan's laws of that time would need to be applied by a Japanese court.

9 ( +11 / -2 )

"In 1965 South Korea and Japan negotiated a Treaty that covered all past issues."

First of all, the following is the opinion of the of the South Korean Supreme and learned Japanese jurists. They have declared that this matter has noting to with the 1965 treaty. Excuse me, I quote at length:

Joint statement by Japanese attorneys on the Korean Supreme Court ruling regarding victims of forced labor

PDF 

November 5, 2018

On October 30, 2018, the Korean Supreme Court rejected an appeal by Nippon Steel & Sumitomo Metal against a previous lower court decision, recognizing the right of four plaintiffs who had been forced into labor at the Japanese steel mills to receive damage compensation from the company. The court ruled that the steelmaker should provide compensation of 100 million KRW (about 10 million JPY) to each of the four plaintiffs.

The court ruled that the plaintiffs’ right to seek compensation constituted the right to compensation for pain and suffering from the Japanese company for its inhumane, unlawful activities directly related to the Japanese government’s unlawful colonial rule of Korea and its war of aggression. It also ruled that their right to seek compensation was not subsumed by the Agreement between the Republic of Korea and Japan Concerning the Settlement of Problems in Regard to Property and Claims and Economic Cooperation signed in 1965 (hereinafter the “Korea-Japan Claims Settlement Agreement”) and that neither the Korean government’s right of diplomatic protection nor the plaintiffs’ individual rights to seek compensation had been extinguished.

At a meeting of the House of Representatives on October 30, 2018, Japanese Prime Minister Abe stated that the right of individuals to seek compensation had been “completely and finally” settled by the Korea- Japan Claims Settlement Agreement, and that the Japanese government would “respond resolutely” to the ruling, which he described as “impossible in light of international law.”

However, Prime Minister Abe’s response was based on a lack of accurate understanding of the Korea-Japan Claims Settlement Agreement and international law. Also, his “resolute response” alone would not help achieve a true resolution of the forced labor issue.

Second of all, the 1965 treaty was forced on the South Korean people by a pro-rightwing Japanese dictator. It should be trashed.

Thirdly, no matter how much the Japanese nationalist pout, they are completely impotent in this matter.

-8 ( +2 / -10 )

South Korea's court action is totally unacceptable.

S.Korea is acting like a rogue state, same like sea pirates!

They should expect to be treated the same.

5 ( +8 / -3 )

This issue has been settled in Japan-ROK bilateral level. All left should be handled within the jurisdiction of ROK. The ROK government is responsible for the issue, as it "stole" compensation money from Japan. The plaintiff should have charged its government, not intimidated locally operating Japanese businesses.

7 ( +9 / -2 )

"They should expect to be treated the same."

So who is going to do what to South Korea? The best the Japanese ultra-nationalists can do is punch in minuses in forms like this.

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

. The Contracting Parties confirm that [the] problem concerning property, rights and interests of the two Contracting Parties and their nationals (including juridical persons) and concerning claims between the Contracting Parties and their nationals, including those provided for in Article IV, paragraph (a) of the Treaty of Peace with Japan signed at the city of San Francisco on September 8, 1951, is settled completely and finally.

Well...By reading it we see how clearly the 1965 treat was regarding the claims about past issues.

The products supplied by Japan shall not be re-exported from the territory of the Republic of Korea. pg270

Interesting.

(g) It is confirmed that problem concerning property, rights and interests of the two countries and their nationals and concerning the claims between the two countries and their nationals, which is settled completely and finally as mentioned in paragraph 1, Includes any claim falling within the scope of the "Outline of the Claims of the Republic of Korea against Japan" (the so-called "Eight Items"), which was submitted by the Korean side at the Japan-Republic of Korea negotiations and that, therefore, no contention can be made with respect to the above mentioned Outline of the Claims of the Republic of Korea against Japan ;

It includes individuals.

Regardless of anything, I hope by dialogue the situation between those nations get better.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

jeancolmar Today 06:35 pm JST

Second of all, the 1965 treaty was forced on the South Korean people by a pro-rightwing Japanese dictator. It should be trashed.

Nobody forced anything. The 1965 treaty is based on the terms of the 1951 San Francisco treaty. South Korea only followed United Nations standards. Although it is true that the 1965 treaty does not specify textually, private individual reparation in times of war. Whether it has inclusion mechanisms to provide a solution within the treaty itself. 

Let's be honest. This problem has an easy solution. But the government of President Moon will prevent any initiative for a lasting solution. Since he uses this problem for electoral purposes as much as he, as well as his political party.

8 ( +10 / -2 )

"Nobody forced anything. The 1965 treaty is based on the terms of the 1951 San Francisco treaty". When dictator Park, a former member of the colonial pro-Japanese elite, signed off on this treaty their were violent protests in South Korea. This was no approved the people and South Koreans found it to be inimical to their well-being. Read above the legal argument against Abe's and the right-wing's point of view on this matter.

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

Failure of the Republic of Korea to comply with obligations regarding arbitration under the Agreement on the Settlement of Problems concerning Property and Claims and on Economic Co-operation between Japan and the Republic of Korea

(Statement by Foreign Minister Taro Kono)

https://www.mofa.go.jp/press/release/press4e_002553.html

The first paragraph details the purpose, logic/reasoning, the significance of Treaties, also the need to frame the agreement into international law.

Domestic Judiciary, in this case, The Daegu District Court's Pohang branch, and by association the Government of South Korea is in breach of Treaty law.

There is no tiptoeing around Treaty law in the mistaken political belief that plaintiffs have a claim that such action rights historic wrong-doing.

Look to the future.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Well SK should keep protesting n spreading ccp virus amongst protestors n slowly reducing the brainwashed protestor through infection n they should learn to respect the law of the world n how to respect the treaties the signed. Doesnt matter whether it was a dictator or king or moon or sun or he was drunked blind deaf or whatever only one persont dont sign a treaty or two or three people it two countries that have signed

2 ( +4 / -2 )

The legal issue is well briefed in both Japanese and English.

http://justice.skr.jp/statement.html

http://justice.skr.jp/estatement.html

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

Yup bt sadly its not stated in korean thats y all the caotic problem

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites