politics

S Korean court orders sale of M'bishi Heavy patent for wartime labor

18 Comments

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

© KYODO

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.

18 Comments
Login to comment

Clearly, this is a sign for Japanese companies to pull out of Korea. The Republic of Korea is going to steal all of the Japanese patents in Korea. Time to stop selling to them as well.

8 ( +14 / -6 )

Very bad move if the incoming Yoon Administration is sincere abiout wanting to improve SK-JP relations whuch were decimated by Moon by creating multiple conflict points.

13 ( +20 / -7 )

This isnt surprising.

Can Japan refuse the patent transfer ?

Japan should stop trying to dominate South Korea that would certainly help.

-28 ( +1 / -29 )

@OssanJapan

if the incoming Yoon Administration is sincere abiout wanting to improve SK-JP relations

There is nothing Yoon can do. The Korean Supreme Court has ruled Japanese companies didn't get damage claims protection from the 1965 treaty. The separation of power is clear in Korea.

@Kyo wa heiwa dayo ne

Can Japan refuse the patent transfer ?

This is about Japanese patents registered in Korea.

-20 ( +3 / -23 )

As I understand, Japan signed a treaty with Seoul in 1965 and paid reparations. Seoul's Supreme Court ruling would seem to be a clear violation of that treaty; reinterpreting the agreement to satisfy anti-Japanese resentment of the Korean public.

One cannot sign an agreement to accept reparations as full compensation for a the occupation and then renege to demand more...

This also makes little sense in the larger context of economic development and international relations. The Korean public has more to gain from a better relationship with Japan than what they gain from state-sponsored theft of Japanese companies. Also, before 2040, the SK GDP per capita will overtake Japan's. Meaning Korean people will be more wealthy than Japanese. It's a bit awkward that a country should still be demanding more reparations, a century later, from a poorer country.

10 ( +12 / -2 )

@sethwright

Seoul's Supreme Court ruling would seem to be a clear violation of that treaty

There is absolutely no instance of word "damages" in the treaty text.

There are a series of diplomatic memos that illustrates that Japanese negotiators understood the implication of removing the word "damages" from draft treaty text. It was the Japanese side that demanded the removal of word "damages". Had the Japanese side kept the word "damages" on the treaty text, we wouldn't have this dispute today. But no, Japan's pride and honor doesn't allow it to admit its actions in Korea was illegal and criminal.

The fact of matter is that the treaty doesn't cover damages, and Japanese negotiators knew it.

Also, before 2040, the SK GDP per capita will overtake Japan's

Korea's nominal GDP per capital already overtook Japan. Remember, average Japanese worker earn 30% less than a typical Korean worker nowadays. For new college graduates, the starting wage is twice that of Japan's.

https://www.eastasiaforum.org/2022/04/01/south-korea-surpasses-japan-in-real-gdp-per-capita/

South Korea surpasses Japan in real GDP per capita

1 April 2022

Author: Richard Katz, Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs

A major geoeconomic event occurred in 2018 when South Korea’s real GDP per capita surpassed that of Japan. By 2026, the International Monetary Fund projects that South Korea will be 12 per cent ahead of Japan. 

-23 ( +0 / -23 )

The separation of power is clear in Korea.

Really? The country retiring president pushes and passed the bill to strip Korean prosecutors of their

investigative powers to cover his own back?

15 ( +15 / -0 )

@kennyG

The country retiring president pushes and passed the bill to strip Korean prosecutors of their investigative powers to cover his own back?

No, the liberals are trying to implement an American style justice system. In the US, investigative powers and prosecution are separate, and the liberals want the same system in Korea, Korean FBI and all.

The current system is a legacy of Imperial Japan's system that gives excessive power to prosecutors that should have been gone ages ago. Japan too should reform its current justice system with a 99% conviction rate.

-22 ( +0 / -22 )

There is no circumventing Treaty Law, through any interpretation of/to domestic legislative executive judiciary.

There is a clear route within the signed 1965 Treaty for solving treaty conflict provision/resolution that ultimately rests with ICJ

No domestic/national court can temporarily suspend their obligations to that party under the 1965 Treaty stipulations.

Any material breaches will or could result in punitive sanctions.

Seizures and forfeit of property.

The SK Government pension fund investments in Japan could be at risk.

The fact remains that previous SK government signed a Treaty, banked the benefits and will now, have to abide by some rather odorous provisions.

17 ( +17 / -0 )

It sounds like something China would do. Also, many Japanese companies will have second thoughts about investing in S. Korea.

For S. Korea, it may feel good for a while emotionally, but it’ll have economic ramifications.

17 ( +17 / -0 )

@Itsonlyrocknroll

No domestic/national court can temporarily suspend their obligations to that party under the 1965 Treaty stipulations.

There is absolutely no instance of word "damages" on the treaty text. Japanese companies and persons do not have protection and indemnity from damages claim. Blame it on the arrogant pride of Japanese negotiators who refused Korean offer to include it in the treaty text.

-23 ( +1 / -24 )

Samit Basu, that 1965 is bullet proof, The protocols and stipulations within the Treaty states a clear conflict resolution process. There is no hiding place from either Japan or South Korean national judiary.

With the benefit of hindsight the Treaty in question is odorous, may I suggest a bribe to bring some semblance of normality to restore diplomatic relations.

Having said that, the South Korean government could opt for third party arbitration but through 1965 Treaty the ICJ. It would be binding but times change and so do the courts Judgments.

14 ( +15 / -1 )

I see it as only a political game for domestic Korean consumption. But it will have real economic repercussion. I am not a fun of S.Korea, but good economic relations are necessary.

10 ( +10 / -0 )

Out going President Moon Jae-in, has handed incoming South Korean president, Yoon Suk Yeol a political poison chalice,

Instead of finding an amicable compromise de-escalation, Moon Jae-in allowed/encouraged the South Korean court system to adjudicate, and thus interpret what is and isn't Treaty Law.

The timing of this judgement is could have disastrous consequences.  

A district court in South Korea has ordered the sale of a patent held by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd for forced wartime labor compensation to a Korean woman, a lawyer for the plaintiff said Monday.

This stems from the fact monies/compensation paid to the then South Korean government were never passed onto the rightful people/victims.

10 ( +10 / -0 )

The separation of power is clear in Korea

Such a worn-out phrase to excuse yourselves. South Korea should internationally announce that any nations when concluding international treaties/agreements with SK are to do so through double/triple tiers with 1) then-government and 2) judiciary top and what...must wait for national ratification to be passed, Oh don't forget gathering consents of so-called victims whom SK as a nation has roughly registered, but not gone through any meaningful fact-checking process whatsoever.

Laughable. You are just giving such headaches to each powerless judges at the lowest-level courts to obey the supreme level... due to the morons at the supreme level who are not even democratically elected, can't even read the treaties... with no idea about Vienna conventions of Laws of treaties .

PS:

"Damage" was completely covered in 1965, if you know the details of dialogue between two nations, where Japan offered to compensate exactly the same way to treat South Koreans damaged...INDIVIDUALLY. Your "Damage" is all about illegality of annexation.

Please do not repeat the same quibble and not let me repeat it. It took 15 years to reach to that agreement for Crist's sake

1 ( +4 / -3 )

You know, Samit Basu I up vote your posts, why, because your opinion matters to this site.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Not all, Samit Basu

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Recently, a ministerial candidate for the incoming South Korean government apparently claimed that in order to solve this problem, companies that received money from Japan and grew should pay for it.

To be fair, the companies only received the money and delivered goods and products for it, and the SK government was fully responsible for this problem, as it used the money it received from Japan for other things. It seems likely that the new South Korean government will end up being a comedian-level government after all.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

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