Study on the laws covering special cases on deposit of unpaid wages for the Korean forced labors, focusing on ‘Prescript on Special Cases of Deposit’ and its ‘Enforcement Ordinace’
Authors:   The Association Of Korean-Japanese National Studies, Oh IL-Hwan 
Published: July 2023

In post-war Japan under GHQ/SCAP, the policies of GHQ and the Japanese government conflicted over the handling of unpaid wages for forced labor victims from former colonies, such as Koreans. While GHQ ultimately instructed debtors, companies and business owners, to deposit them in special management accounts, etc. in order to pay outstanding payments to Koreans, the Japanese government has since 1946 decided to deposit them with each local legal bureau in accordance with the deposit procedure under the Civil Act. instructed that In general, Japanese debtor companies and others followed the instructions of the Japanese government. After 1949, when the conclusion of the Japan Peace Treaty was expected and the end of GHQ’s military rule was imminent, GHQ eventually instructed the Japanese government to devise separate measures regarding the deposit system for overseas creditors, including Koreans, unlike the existing deposit procedure under the Civil Act, as a realistic alternative. Accordingly, on February 28, 1951, ｢Prescript on Special Cases on Deposit for the Purpose of Repayment of Debts to Foreigners, etc. Living Abroad｣ (Prescript No. 22) and ｢Debt Repayment to Foreigners, etc. An Ordinance on the Enforcement of the Decree on Special Deposits (Ordinance of the Ministry of Justice, Ordinance of the Minister of Justice No. 1) was also enacted and promulgated. Since then, the Prescript on Special Cases in Deposit has been amended 8 times and the Enforcement Ordinace has been revised 9 times. This study focused on analyzing the meaning and characteristics. The main characteristics of the Prescript on Special Cases of Deposit and its Enforcement Ordinace are as follows. First, the funds of ‘foreigners residing abroad’ are specially deposited and transferred to the ‘yen account, bank of Japan’, the ‘statute of limitations’ prescribed in the existing civil law does not apply, and the right to request refund by the government delegation representing individual creditor was recongnized in the two laws. This is a very unusual special measure. In addition, it contains special provisions for deposit procedures and procedures unlike the existing civil law regulations. Second, Article 1 of the Enforcement Ordinace enumerates ‘overseas’ areas that are not included in Japan’s annexed islands, including ‘Ulleungdo, Dokdo(Take-shima), and Jejudo’. This is the one I have confirmed and reported as a thesis for the first time. Third, the main points of the revised contents of the two laws are the deletion of GHQ’s deposit order and procedures, the deletion of the clause on the right to claim refund by the government delegation representing individual victims, and the inclusion of clause Dokdo etc., as annexed islands of Japan. It is the point that the clause about overseas regions was deleted. Overall, the above content restricts the deposit procedure for unpaid money for Korean victims of forced labor, lowers the possibility of claiming the deposit, and restricts the procedure, and can be regarded as an amendment to delete provisions unfavorable to the claim to sovereignty over Dokdo.