Quoting a Sankei Shimbun editorial, this piece reviews the 1965 Claims Agreement, wartime labor disputes, postwar compensation, and infrastructure assets relinquished by Japan.
It examines the legal framework of postwar settlements and possible policy responses following South Korea’s Supreme Court ruling.

2019-01-14
The following is from an article published on page 12 of the Sankei Shimbun on November 6 titled “South Korea, Stop Taking Japan for Granted.”

A previously published chapter on November 6 discussing estimates that total assets amounted to approximately 17 trillion yen, with Korea’s portion converted to 8 trillion yen in present value, has ranked 16th in Ameba’s official hashtag ranking for Daegu.
A related chapter advocating consideration of economic sanctions and visa restrictions ranked 19th.

The following is from the November 6 Sankei article.

Three years ago, I interviewed Mr. Lee Daiichi, then 64, a former restaurant owner living in Tagawa City, Fukuoka Prefecture.
His uncle had worked before the war at the Hojo coal mine in the Chikuho region.
“My uncle came to Japan under orders from the Korean village chief in his hometown of Daegu.
But he said many from the peninsula came voluntarily seeking work.”

Japan enacted the National Mobilization Law in July 1939.
Peninsula residents became subject to conscription only in September 1944.
Before that, recruitment was conducted by private brokers.

Coal mining wages were exceptionally high.
According to Tatsuo Ueda, then 91, former cultural property specialist, in 1920 the average monthly wage of a coal miner was 37.77 yen when a 60 kg sack of rice cost 12 yen.
A sack of rice was roughly a year’s consumption for an adult male.
Thus, miners earned the equivalent of three years’ rice in one month.

The reason I reviewed my notes was the ruling by South Korea’s Supreme Court.
Four Koreans filed suit against Nippon Steel & Sumitomo Metal.
They had come through recruitment, not conscription.
The court recognized claims for damages rather than unpaid wages.

This effectively denied the 1965 Claims Agreement which stated that issues were settled completely and finally.
It could lead to the seizure of Japanese corporate assets.

Japan’s response should not be limited to appeals to the International Court of Justice or expressions of regret.
Economic sanctions and visa restrictions should be considered.

Japan paid Korea five hundred million dollars in grants and loans.
It also relinquished all infrastructure assets left on the peninsula.

Total assets were estimated at 17 trillion yen, with Korea’s portion converted to 8 trillion yen today.
These figures were derived from GHQ, former military, Finance Ministry, and Foreign Ministry documents.

If the agreement is nullified, Japan could present an 8 trillion yen invoice.

Public patience in Japan is wearing thin.
South Korea should not continue to rely on Japan indefinitely.

Deputy Editorial Board Member, Rui Sasaki.