지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
이용수
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
The assets in Japan of Bank of Chosun and Bank of Taiwan was one of the hottest issues in the postwar debates surrounding the view of de-colonization among the Northeast Asian countries. This paper explores the liquidation process of those assets in Japan, especially focusing on the legal aspects.
The assets in Japan of Bank of Chosun and Bank of Taiwan were frozen in 1950 by the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers(SCAP), who looked upon those assets as a subject of ‘special agreement’ among related countries, based on the Treaty of Peace with Japan and Japan-Taiwan Peace Treaty. However, after independence, Japanese Government redeemed most of those assets for its national revenues, asserting that Bank of Chosun and Bank of Taiwan were special banks authorized to issue banknote in its colonies. Japan’s redemption of those assets to its national treasury was the same as one-sided action, implying it would reject South Korea and Taiwan’s claims to those assets completely. Japanese Government insisted that Bank of Chosun and Bank of Taiwan were Japanese private corporations based on Japanese imperial law, so all assets should be reverted to Japanese stock holders. However, from the view of Korea and Taiwan, Japan’s stance as such was just a repetition of imperial logic for justifying colonization of Korean Peninsular and Taiwan. However in spite of losing the reserve for issuing of central banks, South Korean and Taiwanese Governments did not demand claims to those assets aggressively in their postwar negotiation talks with Japan. Consequently, the assets in Japan of Bank of Chosun and Bank of Taiwan had become vested in Japan, while arousing an endless controversy over de-colonization in the Northeast Asia.
The assets in Japan of Bank of Chosun and Bank of Taiwan were frozen in 1950 by the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers(SCAP), who looked upon those assets as a subject of ‘special agreement’ among related countries, based on the Treaty of Peace with Japan and Japan-Taiwan Peace Treaty. However, after independence, Japanese Government redeemed most of those assets for its national revenues, asserting that Bank of Chosun and Bank of Taiwan were special banks authorized to issue banknote in its colonies. Japan’s redemption of those assets to its national treasury was the same as one-sided action, implying it would reject South Korea and Taiwan’s claims to those assets completely. Japanese Government insisted that Bank of Chosun and Bank of Taiwan were Japanese private corporations based on Japanese imperial law, so all assets should be reverted to Japanese stock holders. However, from the view of Korea and Taiwan, Japan’s stance as such was just a repetition of imperial logic for justifying colonization of Korean Peninsular and Taiwan. However in spite of losing the reserve for issuing of central banks, South Korean and Taiwanese Governments did not demand claims to those assets aggressively in their postwar negotiation talks with Japan. Consequently, the assets in Japan of Bank of Chosun and Bank of Taiwan had become vested in Japan, while arousing an endless controversy over de-colonization in the Northeast Asia.
목차
Ⅰ. 들어가며
Ⅱ. 미국 점령기의 청산과정
Ⅲ. 일본의 주권회복과 청산잔여금의 분배
Ⅳ. 조선은행·대만은행의 재일재산을 둘러싼 한국-일본-대만 관계
Ⅴ. 나오며
참고문헌
참고문헌 (2)
참고문헌 신청
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
조선은행법에 내재된 식민지 중앙은행제도의 모순 : 감독권의 소재를 둘러싼 논의를 중심으로
조명근
한국사학보
2009
.02
1910년대 일본제국의회 속기록에 나타난 조선은행(권)의 성격, 팽창과 위험의 연쇄
김윤희
한일관계사연구
2014
.04
홍산문화 유물에 보이는 인장의 기원과 고조선문화
朴仙姬
비교민속학
2012
.12
1910년대 조선은행의 만주 진출과 ‘해외은행’으로서의 정체성 형성
조명근
아세아연구
2012
.12
近代韓ㆍ日ㆍ臺灣의 국정교과서에 ‘天皇’으로 표상된 帝國의 식민교육 -1910년대 초등 <일본어교과서>를 중심으로-
장미경
일어일문학
2023
.11
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2014-900-002821129