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

A. On May 15, 2014, the Plaintiff asserted that he/she was on the street in the coal mine that he/she was to be mobilized as a forced mobilization during the period of a national defense dispute and that he/she was a child of B (hereinafter “the deceased”) who died on November 23, 1959, and filed an application for consolation money and other support (hereinafter “instant application”) with the Support Committee (hereinafter “Committee”), such as the victims of forced mobilization during the period of a national defense dispute, and the victims of a foreign compulsory mobilization.

B. On July 24, 2015, the commission rendered a decision to reject an application for payment of consolation money, etc. to the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 22 of the same Act on the ground that “the deceased is not a victim of compulsory mobilization to overseas under Article 2 of the Special Act on the Support for the Investigation into Force Forced Mobilization and the Victims of Compulsory Mobilization to Foreign Countries (hereinafter “the Act on the Investigation into Forced Mobilization”) because it is impossible to determine the damage caused by compulsory mobilization to overseas and death during compulsory mobilization.”

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.

On April 7, 2015, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed an application for review with the commission on April 7, 2015, but the said application was dismissed on December 17, 2015.

On December 31, 2015, the defendant succeeded to the affairs under his jurisdiction in accordance with Article 19(4) of the Compulsory Mobilization Investigation Act as the period of existence of the commission expires.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 4, 5, and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. To make entries in the attached statutes concerned;

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The deceased, who is the father of the Plaintiff’s assertion, was employed in the coal mine as a forced mobilization during the period of a large-day defense dispute, and died at the same time.

The above facts have been guaranteed, and D, the child of the father C of the small father of the plaintiff, was also paid consolation money for the same reason.

In light of this, the deceased constitutes a victim of compulsory mobilization by overseas force under Article 2 of the Compulsory Mobilization Investigation Act.

B. The Plaintiff was aware of the fact that he was forced to mobilize the Deceased at the time of the instant application.