IAbnormal judiciary theft Buddha statue return in Korea and delivery refusal of the Yasukuni arson Chinese
announced the judgment that a Korean court gave the Japanese company including Nippon Steel Sumikin an order for the individual compensation to a wartime former commandeering mechanic. Both Japan-Korea government "is Japan-Korea right to claim agreements" of 1965 together, and agree on the issue of compensation of the commandeering mechanic in a situation that "is complete" and was solved "for the last time by a mark";, however.
There are other examples of the eccentric Korean judiciary which made a decision. While stolen prefecture designation tangible cultural property "Goddess of Mercy seated figures" are discovered in Kanonji of Tsushima-shi, Nagasaki in Korea, it is not yet returned to Japan.
 suit, Ota district court "must not return the Korea government to the Japan side, "was said plunder as for the Bodhisattva seated figure in Japanese pirates" Korea, a stone not firmly anchored in the ground temple insisting that is an original owner until it is proved in March that Kanonji acquired a Buddha statue fairly"; is because made a decision. Lawyer Yasuhiko Horiuchi increasing a sense of impending crisis in the Korean judiciary talks in this way.
"I am disgusted and cannot talk". As for a Japanese court giving such a judgment, absolute. It is provided, it "is estimated that the right that an owner uses about an occupation thing has lawfully" in the civil law. In other words the person insisting that it is not the possession of the person must prove so.

In other words, "the Korean government must return it to Japan until it is demonstrated that Kanonji acquired a Buddha statue fairly", and "floating Ishidera side must demonstrate that Kanonji acquired a Buddha statue unfairly". The burden of proof is on the floating Ishidera side. I find it very difficult to understand whether the Korean legal system makes a model of Japan and is constructed, and the judicial decision that ignored the large principle of such a law why appears though a principle of law theory makes a little difference
The delivery refusal case of the Yasukuni shrine arsonist of January shows the way of judicial nonsense in Korea. It was suspected that I set fire to the Shinto shrine, and the Japanese side demanded the body of suspect Chinese restricted in Korea to deliver it based on "an extradition treaty", but a treaty authorized the Seoul High Court with a political offense to be excluded of the repatriation.
"A war crime is enshrined together by Yasukuni shrine, and the High Court says, I am associated with the arson charge with the political purpose", but it is said that it is strong, and the China government required the repatriation to China, and it is said that I put pressure on the Korea government so that anti-Japan groups supporting a former charity dame do not deliver even Korea to Japan. If the judiciary succumbed to a demand of such a China and the anti-Japan power, Korea is already a lawless nation.