President Yoon Seok-yeol spoke of 'confirmation of the free value agreement' in a speech at a cabinet meeting in the form of a public address, but Japanese Prime Minister Kishida's summit statement said, "A country that agrees to preserve a free and open international order based on the rule of law" We shared the awareness of the need to join forces.”
While broadcasting the cabinet meeting live on the 21st, President Yoon said, “At this summit visit to Japan, which took place after 12 years, Prime Minister Kishida and I (omission) shared the universal values of freedom, human rights and the rule of law, We confirmed that we are the closest neighbors and partners to work together in pursuit of common interests on the global agenda.”
On the other hand, Prime Minister Kishida’s statement on the day of the Korea-Japan summit stated, “At this turning point in history, we have confirmed the importance of realizing a free and open Indo-Pacific, and countries that share our will to preserve a free and open international order based on the rule of law are strong. We shared the awareness of the need to merge.”
President Yoon's announcement at the summit, which was announced at the same time, stated, “We will closely cooperate and cooperate with the international community in the process of promoting Korea's 'Indo-Pacific Strategy of Freedom, Peace and Prosperity' and Japan's 'Free and Open Indo-Pacific'. In addition, as the international order based on universal values of freedom, human rights, and the rule of law has achieved world peace and prosperity, we decided to join forces to preserve it.”
President Yoon's remarks at the cabinet meeting reflected the Korean announcement as it was, revealing a gap with the Japanese announcement, but President Yoon expressed that "Prime Minister Kishida confirmed it."
President Yoon also said, “The Korean government has pushed for a third-party reimbursement proposal as a compromise that simultaneously satisfies both the agreement at the time of normalization of diplomatic relations in 1965 and the Supreme Court ruling in 2018.” It is said that the Korean government will receive Japanese subsidies on behalf of the people’s individual claims.”
The Supreme Court ruling said, “The Claims Agreement is not a negotiation to claim compensation for Japan’s illegal colonial rule, but basically to settle the financial and civil debt/debt relationship between Korea and Japan through a political agreement based on Article 4 of the San Francisco Treaty. “The first Korea-Japan talks (from February 15, 1952) were held soon after the signing of the San Francisco Treaty, and the eight items proposed by the South Korean side at that time were basically financial and civil issues between Korea and Japan. Regarding the Korean plan, he said, “In paragraph 5, there is a phrase ‘claim for reimbursement of receivables, compensation and other claims of the 14 Koreans who were drafted,’ but nowhere else in the eight items are Japanese colonies. Since there is no content premised on the illegality of the ship, it seems that the above paragraph 5 was not premised on the illegal act of the Japanese side. Therefore, it is difficult to see that the above ‘reimbursement of receivables, compensation and other claims by Koreans for forced labor’ includes the right to claim solatium for forced labor,” the judgment was made on October 30, 2028.
The Supreme Court continued, “Article 1 of the Claims Agreement stipulates ‘providing $300 million free of charge and implementing a loan (paid) of $200 million,’ but there is no specific content on the title. In the case of loans, they are made by Japan's Overseas Economic Cooperation Fund, and there is only a limitation that the above grants and loans must be beneficial to the economic development of the Republic of Korea. Although the preamble of the Claims Agreement mentions “solving the claim issue,” there is nothing specifically related to the above 500 million dollars (300 million dollars for grants and 200 million dollars for loans). The same is true for the ‘8 items’ mentioned in 2.(g) of the Agreed Minutes (I) of the Claims Agreement. At the time, Japan’s position was also that the money in Article 1 of the Claims Agreement was basically in the nature of economic cooperation, and that there was no legal reciprocal relationship between Articles 1 and 2 of the Claims Agreement.”
At the time, the High Court ruling said, “The plaintiffs’ right to claim damages is not included in the scope of application of the Claims Agreement, and even if included, the individual right to make a claim itself does not naturally lapse with the Claims Agreement alone, but the Republic of Korea’s diplomatic right to protect that claim with the Claims Agreement. It has just been abandoned.”
While the court's judgment stated that "the Claims Agreement did not extinguish the individual's right to make a claim," President Yoon said on the same day, "The Korea-Japan Claims Settlement Agreement allows the Korean government to receive subsidy from Japan on behalf of the people's individual right to make a claim." big.
Regarding this gap, President Yoon said that it was a “compromise to satisfy the judgment at the same time” and applied the method of “reimbursing individual claims by a third-party representative of a Korean company” to Japan.
In his address to the public this time, President Yoon said that the “claims agreement was accepted by the government as a collective representation of the Japanese government.”
Attorney Shin Pyeong, a 40-year-old friend of President Yoon, said earlier, “During the 1965 Korea-Japan Claims Settlement Agreement, Japan paid a huge amount of money at the time as a claim fund, and not only the governments of Korea and Japan, but also the victims of conscription, settled the claim for damages at once. Supreme Court Justice Kim Neung-hwan, who said that the right to claim compensation for forced labor in 2012 is still alive, said, "It is difficult for the ruling to be accepted internationally." If it is transferred to the International Court of Justice, it is almost certain that our side will lose the case."
Since the Park Chung-hee regime did not conduct a fact-finding survey of all conscripted workers from the coup to the signing of the Korea-Japan Agreement in 1965 and the process of “confirming consent to give up,” the “sharing of victims” seems false.