With Treaty on Basic Relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea, Korean government considers that the issues about sex slaves, Koreans in Sakhalin, and victims of the atomic bomb are unsolved, but the issues regarding compulsory mobilization of workers, soldiers, and civilian employees are counted settled by the government simply because the civil request for compensation was paid in 1970s, and an act of support for the victims of compulsory mobilization during the pacific war was enacted and operated since 2007.
However, many problems have arisen from the disagreements between the range of damage resulted from compulsory mobilization and the categories of support. To examine those disagreements in this study, I searched the way Korean government defined damage from compulsory mobilization since 1945, and the key factors which made several changes concerning the way.
Since the end of Pacific War, Korean government continued to figure out the scale of damage caused by forced mobilization. USAMGLK investigated the number of forced draft and resulting damage as a part of dismissing the relief society established by Japan. During the 1949’s census, damage resulting from impressment, draft, and the unreturned was investigated as well.
Besides, the returners themselves surveyed damage and petitioned to government and parliament, and with their assistant, the government confirmed the fact of damage. Until 1958, at least 4 times of national investigation into the victims of forced mobilization were held including an inquiry done by President Rhee, Syngman at 1952 in order to make the result one of the agenda at the Korea-Japan Conference. With these respects, it seemed possible for Korean government to discern damage to forced draftees.
In the Treaty between Korea and Japan, Japan sets damage of compulsory mobilization to the category of support. In other words, recipient should be the dead, or the wounded among wartime mobilized (in case of workers, by public agency and forced draft) and they would be given unpaid payment and relief fund.
After the Treaty, Korean government enacts ‘Act on the operation and management of reparation fund of Japan’ having discussed the character of reparation and fund at the National Assembly.
Regarding the reparation and fund, Korean government shows an ambivalent attitude. When advertising accomplishment of the Treaty, the government laid focus on the fact that it was compensation for general demage of colonialism. However, when processing real compensation, it took the smallest category as “claim in property”.
Eventually, the government accepted the opposition party’s opinion and made ‘Law on registration of civil-claim against Japan,’ identifying the victim of compulsory mobilization with the forced draftee, the dead, and fund deposited, in other words, unpaid salary. At this point, the government declared ‘territorial principle’. According to this principle, military postal savings and military scrip are not rewarded and also the money certificates have to be issued in Japan and Korea. But the affected area is not confined among Sahkalin, Namyang, North Korea, or China, if only applicant have to have Korean nationality.
1965's Treaty on Basic Relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea and 1974's 'Law on registration of civil-claim against Japan' are the mother law of the existing ‘Act of Support Victims of Compulsory Mobilization during Pacific War’. But the segregation between mobilization either in domestic or in foreign area in the existing Act is not shown in the Law at 1974. Regarding Sakhalin Korean, for example, the constitutional court's decision explained the compensation at the respect of finance. Though problems about the unreturned are still remained unsolved, the right of claim for the compensation of the dead and payment of arrearage, unpaid salary, should be settled with budget permitting.