2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The Plaintiff asserted that B (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) mobilized from around 1940 to around August 1945 to the South South-Namnam-do, etc. located in Malaysia, and that he/she returned to the family on the bridge and went through legacy and mental stress on May 8, 1987. On June 13, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for the payment of consolation benefits under Article 4 of the Special Act on the Investigation of Forced Mobilization, etc. into Forced Mobilization and Support for Victims, etc. of Overseas Forced Mobilization (hereinafter referred to as “the Committee”) with the Committee for Support of the Victims, etc. of Forced Mobilization during the Japanese War, and applied for the payment of consolation benefits under Article 4 of the Special Act on the Investigation into Forced Mobilization and Support for Victims, etc. of Overseas Force Mobilization (hereinafter referred to as “Compulsory Mobilization Investigation Act”). However, the Committee was aware that the deceased forced to have returned to Korea on the bridge, but did not have any grounds to recognize the deceased’s injury or disability (hereinafter referred to as “the instant consolation benefits”).

B. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an application for review with the commission on October 7, 2015, but the commission dismissed the said application on the ground that “the commission did not have any reason to modify the instant disposition” on October 12, 2015.

C. On December 31, 2015, the Defendant succeeded to the affairs under the jurisdiction of the commission upon the expiration of the term of the commission.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 11 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

(a) Relevant statutes;

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes shall be as follows.

B. Determination

Article 2 subparag. 3 (a) and Article 4 subparag. 2 of the Compulsory Mobilization Investigation Act provide that during the period from April 1, 1938 to August 15, 1945, when forced mobilization abroad by a soldier, a civilian military employee, a worker, etc., or a person suffering from a disability due to an injury prescribed by Presidential Decree during the period or during the period of return to the Republic of Korea (victim of compulsory mobilization by a foreign country) shall be paid consolation money in consideration of the degree of the relevant disability. Further, a person who intends to receive consolation money shall submit a "written evidence verifying that he/she is a victim of compulsory mobilization by foreign country" pursuant to Article 27 (1) of the Compulsory Mobilization Investigation Act and Article 24 (1) subparag. 4 of the Enforcement Decree thereof.

However, if the data submitted by the Plaintiff were to have been mobilized abroad during the period of forced mobilization abroad or returned to Korea, it is insufficient to recognize the fact that the deceased was suffering from disability, and there is no data to recognize the degree of disability. Accordingly, the instant disposition is lawful.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed without merit, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Dong-gu

Judge Lee Ho-hoon

A person shall be appointed.