Newsletter

Question

When visiting Korea on October 18, Japanese prime minister Noda returned to our government some of the books that Japan had illegally taken out. What meaning and implication does it have?

Answer

When visiting Korea on October 18, Japanese prime minister Noda returned to our government 3 books about the Royal Protocols of the Joseon Dynasty and 2 books of Gyujanggak that had been kept by the Imperial Household Agency. These books were part of those kept by Japan's imperial household agency due to be returned according to the 'Korea-Japan books agreement' passed in Japan's House of Representatives and House of Councilors in last spring. The rest of the books will be returned by December 10.

During the ratification of the 'Korea-Japan Agreement on Books', parliament members of the Liberal Democratic Party protested, "Why do we have to return books other than those that should be returned according to prime minister Kan in his statement on August 10 last year? Why do we have to return books other than those that Japan brought out through the Office of Governor of Korea and have been kept by the Japanese government?" In response to this protest, foreign minister Matsumoto Dakeaki (grandson of Ito Hirobumi on mother's side), who was in charge of implementing the 'Agreement on Books' tried to persuade them by saying, "We have included them because we thought it would be in line with the spirit of prime minister Kan's statement."

However, if you look at the course of Japan's returning some of Gyujanggak books in 1966 and the situations before and after this 'Korea-Japan Agreement on Books', it will be difficult to accept that the 938 books of Gyujanggak are due to be returned according to Japan's initiative. Japan returned 90 books of 11 groups on May 28, 1966 according to 'Korea-Japan Cultural Assets Agreement' because Korean delegates attending the cultural assets meeting of Korea-Japan Meetings presented detailed evidence to Japanese side which did not concede Japan's illegal taking-out of those and we pressed them.

Then, why were the 938 books due to be returned soon not included in the list at that time? And how was the existence of these books revealed and how were these books included in the list of books due to be returned now? Two important research results should be given attention in relation to this. BAEK Rin, who used to work in Seoul National University's library, discovered documents of the imperial household agency and the office of the governor of Korea that showed Ito's taking out Gyujanggak books, and reported it in a paper in 1968. Based on this research, Professor LEE Sang-chan at Seoul National University found a document of the Investigation Department in the Office of the Governor of Korea demanding that some of the books Ito had taken out illegally should be transferred and most of them should be returned, and Professor LEE reported it in a paper in 2002. As such, these papers have discovered the whole amount of the books illegally taken out by Ito, also discovering that even the imperial household agency and the Office of the Governor of Korea recognized that it was illegal to take the books out of Korea.

Professor LEE Sang-chan attended the Korea-Japan experts meeting in November 2010 to discuss the books that should be returned, where he presented the basis for our demand in detail. As a possible result, books that had not been included initially in the list of books to be returned among those illegally taken out by Ito became finally included in the list of books to discuss for return.

As we can see in this case, that books illegally taken out by Ito Hirobumi are due to be returned after 100 years. And it is clear that we will be able to get sincere response from Japan and will also get real fruits only when we present undeniable evidence about the location of the cultural asset and the course of its outflow. Therefore, in order to get back our cultural assets it is vital that we thoroughly investigate the course of outflow of our cultural assets in Japan and secure precise information about their current exhibition or use. For this purpose, it is urgent to produce relevant experts and prepare measures of encouragement.