The chapter sent out on July 31, 2019, titled Lie culture, politics, study, the trial will lead this country to ruin, is being revised and re-sent.
The following is from a column that Nishioka Tsutomu, one of the world's leading experts on the Korean Peninsula, writes for the monthly magazine WiLL.
It is a must-read article for people of the world as well as Japanese people.
Preamble emitted.
Korean university is a lie manufacturing plant.
The following is a continuation of the above chapters.
It is the neglect of the duty of the Supreme Court justices.
It becomes a little long, but because it is about the cause of the worsening of Japan-Korea relations.Ｉwant to introduce the central part of the Judgment criticism of professor Lee.
I will talk about the judgment that NIPPON STEEL CORPORATION, which the South Korean Supreme Court took over that company to before liberation from Japanese rule, four people who worked at Nippon Steel passed to pay 100 million Wong at a time at the end of October 2018.
The plaintiffs filed a lawsuit almost 20 years ago, and I think those who went to Japan in the beginning to sue.
That obsession that drew out the winning lawsuit last is a big deal despite many lost causes.
What is the substance of that obsession?
In any case, the Supreme Court ruled that Koreans were mobilized to Japan for the aggression war on the premise that the Japanese rule of Korea was illegal, and they overworked them as slaves without paying a monthly salary.
The Supreme Court's decision begins with a statement of the 'basic facts' of the case.
The impression of me who read that part was 'this is false' in a word.
I don't try to argue about the principle of the law of a sentence.
I am not a lawyer.
The focus of my judgment is just one.
The 'basic facts' are not facts; no, there is an excellent possibility of lying.
The Supreme Court did not verify whether plaintiffs' claims were valid.
I can not find such a trace in the sentence.
I want to ask the noble Supreme Court judges of our country.
"Is a trial that does not examine claims that may be a lie effective?"
Two of the four plaintiffs worked as trainers at the company's Osaka Steel Works in September 1943 in response to a solicitation.
Nippon Steel forcedly saved most of the monthly salary and had the dormitory's housemaster store the passbook and seal. Still, the plaintiffs say the housemaster did not return the money until the end.
That is the primary content of the damage claiming to be received by the plaintiff.
This fact is well known to me as a historian.
I have heard from many people cases similar to that.
The two plaintiffs are likely to be minors at the time, as the sentence suggests.
The housemaster is not a staff member of Nippon Steel; there is a high possibility of being a Korean by the master of the bunkhouse and workers where workers gather in groups.
They were mainly Koreans.
It is because a story was well-informed for the first time, and the regulation was possible.
Housemaster returned home later with a complainant to Wonsan.
This fact supports the following assumptions.
I think the housemaster could have been the guardian or protector of the plaintiff who accompanied him from the time of departure.
My claim is as follows.
The claim does not hold that Japan Steel did not pay the plaintiff the wage.
The sentence itself, who is there as a compulsory saving, is proving that point.
If a wage isn't paid to a complainant, the housemaster is a criminal.
Therefore, about whether or not the housemaster did so really, we don't understand if not investigating the housemaster.
It may have remitted the monthly payment to the complainant 's parents' home with the housemaster instead of the complainant of the infant.
In short, the case is a civil affairs case between the plaintiff and the housemaster.
It is my view that these read a sentence.
However, did the Supreme Court summon the housemaster, and did it investigate it?
Housemaster should have been dead long before.
Does a suit stand up if being so?
It makes my claim cleared beforehand.
I don't deny the complainant's claim and can't confirm whether or not it is true.
That's true.
The South Korean Supreme Court searched into Nippon Steel's responsibility despite understanding only this level of fact.
A Supreme Court judge isn't a historian.
It is only the lawyer who knows nothing about the actual state at those days, wartime periods.
Isn't it necessary to hear reference testifying, calling the expert related if being so?
However, as much as even the necessity that it must do so about isn't felt, they were ignorant in the actuality in those days.
They did not suspect the plaintiff's claim that the possibility of a lie is high.
They are also because they have been educated to lie since they were young.
It is touching about the anti-Japanese judgment to conscience and courage of Professor Lee, who does the criticism based on the calmness and fact in this way, letting out a real name in the stage of the speech.
'Anti-Japanese race principle' It is said that 18,000 copies are sold out since a sale in 10 days and printing 10,000 copies on the addition *of* written with the desperate feeling that a country dies out if Professor Lee and so on don't fight against a lie.
Why did Professor Lee write the book 'Anti-Japanese race principle'?
The patriotic motives were as follows.
'It is because of anti-Japanese racialism that every lie is made and spreads. If this is left as it is, this country can not be advanced. It will be retrograde rather than developed. Lie culture, politics, study; the trial will lead this country to ruin. This book is all about me, against the anti-Japanese radicalism; it is a rush to its vast cultural power camp.'
Does the combat of Professor Lee and others at such place of the speech change South Korean society?
I want to continue to watch and see.
