2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, 2/3 shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

A. On November 12, 2007, the commission of this case selected the deceased non-party 1 (the deceased non-party 1 (the deceased non-party 1 (the deceased non-party 1) (the second half of June 22, 1890 to August 1957) (the deceased non-party 1 (the deceased non-party 1) as the person subject to investigation of pro-Japanese act, and decided on May 11, 2009 as follows as pro-Japanese act under subparagraphs 7, 17, and 19 of Article 2 of the Special Act (hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of this case").

(1) On October 7, 1910, the deceased non-party 1 (the deceased non-party 1) received the latter act from the Japanese colonialism (hereinafter “Japanese”) under the Japanese Ordinance on the Family Affairs of Joseon (hereinafter “Japan”) and maintained his act until the time when the latter act was returned to the original state on August 15, 1945. This constitutes “the act of receiving or succeeding to the act by mutual consent to the Japanese merger” under Article 2 subparag. 7 of the Special Act.

(2) From July 1939, the deceased non-party 1 (the non-party 1) sent the deliberation members of the National Assembly for Mobilization of the Korean War, which is the wartime control organization organized by the Japanese General Assembly for various official organizations and non-governmental organizations. From November 1, 1940 to May 1942, 194, the Korean National Assembly for Mobilization of the Korean War was expanded and revised. This constitutes the "the head or executive members of the major external group of the Japanese colonialism governing organization, who actively cooperates in the Japanese colonial rule and invasion war" under Article 2 subparag. 17 of the Special Act.

(3) On January 13, 1911, the deceased non-party 1 (the deceased non-party 1) obtained 168,000 Korean government bonds with the recognition of the contribution to the Japanese merger. On August 1, 1912, the deceased non-party 1 (the deceased non-party 1) received 168,000 Korean government bonds, and on August 1, 1912, the deceased non-party 1 received 168,00 Korean government bonds with the recognition of the contribution to the Japanese merger. The deceased non-party 1 received 5th day of December 7, 1912, the deceased non-party 1 (the deceased non-party 1) as the "person who received the contribution to his act and the contribution to his act of doing so, who has contributed to the Japanese society, with the cooperation of colonial rule and attacking war of the Japanese government," respectively. This constitutes "an act of considerable cooperation with the Japanese government."

B. As the period of the commission’s activity expired on November 30, 2009, the Defendant succeeded to the authority pertaining to the instant disposition.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

A. The defendant's assertion

(1) Claim as to whether the disposition is made

According to the special law, the committee of this case determines whether a person subject to the investigation of pro-Japanese act constitutes pro-Japanese act after investigating the pro-Japanese act of the person subject to the investigation of pro-Japanese act, prepare an investigation report, and report it to the National Assembly during the period of the President and the regular session of the National Assembly, and compile feed on pro-Japanese act. Therefore, the decision of pro-Japanese act by the committee of this case is merely the result of pure investigation conducted by the committee of this case, and it does not affect the rights and obligations of the person subject to the

(2) argument as to standing to sue

The Commission’s decision on pro-Japanese acts did not infringe on the legal interest of a person subject to investigation who is the deceased. Furthermore, the Plaintiff did not have any influence on the legal status of the person subject to investigation. Therefore, the Plaintiff did not have any legal interest to seek revocation of the above decision.

B. Determination

(1) Determination as to whether the disposition is made

(A) The term "disposition subject to an administrative litigation" means the exercise or refusal of public authority as an enforcement of law with respect to a concrete fact by an administrative agency, and other similar administrative actions (Article 2(1)1 of the Administrative Litigation Act), and the application of law which directly affect the rights and obligations of the people.

(B) Article 4 of the Special Act provides for the duties of the commission of this case concerning the selection of a person subject to investigation of pro-Japanese acts, investigation of pro-Japanese acts conducted by a person subject to investigation, collection and analysis of domestic and foreign materials related to pro-Japanese acts, and decision-making on pro-Japanese acts by a person subject to investigation of pro-Japanese acts. According to Article 25 of the same Act, the commission of this case shall prepare an investigation report on the activities of the commission of this case and report it to the National Assembly every year during the presidential and regular session of the National Assembly. According to Article 26 of the same Act, the commission of this case shall compile historical records on pro-Japanese acts within the period of its activities, and according to Article 27 of the same Act, the commission of this case

(C) Meanwhile, Article 10(1) of the Constitution provides that all citizens shall have dignity and value as human beings and have the right to pursue happiness. This provision guarantees an individual’s general personal right from the dignity of human beings protected by this provision.

(D) In the event the instant committee determines a person subject to investigation as a pro-Japanese act, it is highly likely that the person subject to investigation may be directly infringed upon his/her personal right, as well as the reputation of the person subject to investigation, due to damage to his/her social reputation. Furthermore, if the instant committee determines as a pro-Japanese act, the investigation report and the feed prepared regarding the act of pro-Japanese cannot be disclosed externally. Therefore, the instant committee limits the general personality right of the person subject to investigation determined as having committed pro-Japanese act, and thus, it is reasonable to deem that the instant committee is not a mere academic investigator but a legal application that directly affects the rights and obligations of the people.

(E) Article 2, Article 3, and Article 5 of the Special Act on the Reversion of Property for Pro-Japanese Collaborative Acts provides that the property of a person who committed an act under Article 2 subparagraphs 6 through 9 of Article 2 of the Special Act and the inherited property shall belong to the State under certain conditions, and Article 3 of the Special Act provides that the results investigated by the Committee in accordance with the provisions of Article 3 of the same Act may be invoked in investigating and selecting pro-Japanese Collaborative Acts. Thus, it is reasonable to view the decision of the Committee of this case as an act of legal application that may affect the people's property rights in this respect.

(F) Accordingly, the decision of the instant commission’s pro-Japanese act constitutes a disposition subject to administrative litigation. This part of the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

(2) Determination on standing to sue

(A) The disposition of this case requires the evaluation of the person subject to investigation as a pro-Japanese and the plaintiff, his lineal descendant, also is the descendants of pro-Japanese and anti-national actors. Thus, the disposition of this case is likely to harm the plaintiff's reputation, and it is directly limited to his personality rights due to damage to the social reputation of the person subject to investigation.

(B) Article 2 Subparag. 2 of the Special Act on the Reversion of Property of Pro-Japanese and Anti-National Collaborators to the State provides that property inherited from pro-Japanese and anti-Japanese actors shall also be pro-Japanese property. Thus, the Plaintiff, who is a lineal descendant of a person subject to investigation, is at risk of being restricted from property

(C) According to Articles 19(2), 24, and 28 of the Special Act, not only the person subject to investigation but also his/her lineal descendant, such as the Plaintiff, has the right to be notified of and objection to the selection of the person subject to investigation, the right to state his/her opinion in the course of investigation, and the right to object

(D) In light of the above, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff has a legal interest in seeking the revocation of the instant disposition. This part of the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) As to Article 2 subparagraph 7 of the Special Act

The deceased non-party 1 (the other party: the other party) did not receive the latter act on the ground that it was contributed to the merger from the Japanese colonial rule, but merely received the latter act on the ground that it was the last child of the Korean Empire.

(2) As to Article 2 subparag. 17 of the Special Act

The deceased non-party 1 (the non-party 1) was merely a member of the National Council for Mobilization of the National Assembly and the National Assembly for Support of Mobilization, and was not the head or executive member of the above organization, and did not actively cooperate in the Japanese colonial rule and the War against aggression.

(3) As to Article 2 subparagraph 19 of the Special Act

The deceased non-party 1 (the non-party 1) is not subject to the Japan's colonial rule and the Korea Joint Memorial Hall, etc. in return for the cooperation of the Japanese colonial rule and the war against aggressions, and since he was already engaged in an act of commission corresponding to the Japanese colonial rule on October 7, 1910, he cannot be deemed to have received a letter of the meaning of the rise in the Japanese colonial rule, and there was no act of remarkably cooperating in the Japanese colonial rule.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) On March 14, 1907, the deceased non-party 1 (the deceased non-party 1) was the 5-year-old descendants (the deceased non-party 1) who were the birth father of the steel species, and was appointed as the Sigwon (the Sigwon) pilot on March 14, 1907. On June 4, 1910, a paper 2 was sealed into the Sigwon Pung-gun. On August 25, 1910, the deceased non-party 1 (the deceased non-party 1) was sentenced to the self-contribution loan of 15 years-old products.

(2) On August 29, 1910, immediately after the merger of Japan, Japan enacted and implemented the Decree on Dominium under Article 14 of the Yellow Order under Article 5 of the Korea-Japan Merger Treaty, which provides that “The Dominium was awarded to a Korean person who was awarded a meritorious deed pulmonary to the Japanese Republic of Korea, especially to a person who is deemed appropriate for commendation, and grants a prize.” Article 2 of the Decree on Dominium stipulates that “The Dominium shall be granted to a Korean person who was a current blood relative of Domins and who was not granted the honorable treatment of Dominium or who was a colon who contributed to the Dominium.”

(3) On October 7, 1910, the deceased non-party 1 (the non-party 1) received, from Japan, a second class of 76 persons who were directly involved in the consolidation of Korea and participated in the work incidental thereto, Japanese government management, and a person who has rendered distinguished services to the previous one class of Korean government, etc. on January 13, 191, the deceased non-party 1 (the non-party 1) received, from Japan, a second class of 76 persons who were in the position of the highest class of persons who were in the position of the ship (at that time, the Japanese class of 76 persons were drafted, but some of them refused to do so) and received, on August 1, 1912, the deceased non-party 1 (the deceased non-party 1) received, from Japan, a second class of the Korean class of anniversary of Korea on the grounds that "the former was meritorious in the former one class of Korean relations."

(4) On December 7, 1912, the deceased non-party 1 (hereinafter referred to as "non-party 1") was put in rank on December 5, 1912, 191, and on December 11, 1916, and on January 13, 1935, and on January 13, 1935, the deceased non-party 1 (hereinafter referred to as "non-party 1") was put in rank on December 4, 1916. Of the mets of Joseon and Japan, the Japanese government brought an order to the deceased himself/herself and the deceased, and first brought an order to the deceased non-party 1. On December 7, 1912, 1912, Japan first brought an order to the Joseon 1, 1, 4, 10, 4, 4, 23, 5, 16, and 16, 5.

(5) From October 24, 1910 to November 16, 1910, the deceased non-party 1 (hereinafter referred to as "non-party 1") visited Japan as a member of the Chosun Pari Tourism Group. At the time, he was refunded from the yellow Domination and other yellow Dominations, etc., and was on November 4, 1910, he participated in the personnel management of an auditor for the commission to be granted to the Japanese Yellow Domination. In addition, on December 25, 1910, the deceased non-party 1 visited the Domination and visited the Domination for the award of the commission. On April 12, 1914, 191, Nari took part in the personnel management of an auditor for the commission.

(6) From January 16, 1915, the deceased non-party 1 (hereinafter referred to as the “non-party 1”) act as the adviser of the office of the Madsan Union, a non-party 1, an institution specializing in the cooperation and support of Japanese colonial affairs. From February 21, 1917, the deceased non-party 1 (hereinafter referred to as the “Madsan”) was on the part of the adviser of the Madsan Association, a pro-Japanese organization established under the lead of

(7) From April 18, 1925 to 1940, the deceased non-party 1 (the non-party 1) sent a director of the Shipbuilding Hashes Association to the 1940th day of August 15, 1945, and served as the president of the Shipbuilding Hashes Association from that time. The satisfaction of the Joseon her husband her team was formed as the Yellow Jins Association in 1911, and led to the progress of loyalty, her character, her good character, and her mutual knowledge, exchange between the people, and expressed loyalty whenever there were significant events, etc. of the Joseon Hashes Association. It was not a political and social organization to promote the mutual development of the Joseon Hashes Association as an organization with very important knowledge and ability, but a mere improvement of its ability to contribute to the development of the Joseon her team as an organization with respect to the formation of the Joseon her team.

(8) On November 10, 1928, the deceased non-party 1 (the non-party 1) was awarded shocks and memorial commemorations with active cooperation with colonial rule from Japanese colonial rule. around 1939, the Joseon General was engaged in the activities as executive officers (participating) of the Joseon Winter Police Association organized to control and control the remains of Joseon. around 1938, the 1,000 won was packaged from the Japanese colonial rule on June 20, 1940, and the 1,000 won was delivered to the 1,000 won to the 19th Japanese colonial rule on November 10, 1940, and the 1940 Japanese colonial rule on July 4, 194, the 2000 Japanese colonial rule on July 194, 200 Japanese colonial rule on May 14, 194, and the 194 Japanese colonial rule on July 19, 2009 Japanese colonial rule on May 3, 2014.

(9) On July 1939, the deceased non-party 1 (the counter-party 1) took part in the deliberation of the National Assembly for the mobilization of the National Academy. Since then, the National Assembly for the mobilization of the National Academy was reorganized on October 16, 1940 by the National Assembly for the members of the National Assembly. From the above Federation to May 1942, 1942, the members of the Council were the members of the Council.

(10) After the mid-day War, Japan formed the National Assembly for the purpose of gathering one week from the outbreak of the Japanese War, with the aim of co-operation and establishing a display system for internal affairs, exhibitions, and national affairs, which are government organizations within the Joseon General. Based on the administrative unit such as the Do governor, vice-Gun governor, Eup/Myeon governor, and Eup/Myeon governor, the local organization of the Do governor was formed, separate from the local organization, as a subordinate organization of the above Do governor, and formed various Do governors as a school or workplace as a subordinate organization of the above Do governor. Article 2 of the Regulations of the Do governor provides, “The Do governor shall be the internal organization, the Do governor, the Do governor, the Do governor, the Do governor, and the Do governor shall be the organization of the Do governor, the Do governor, the Do governor, and the Do governor shall be the members of the above Do governor, and the members of the Do governor and the Do governor shall be the members of the Do governor.

(11) On October 16, 1940, when the war was expanded, Japan formed the National Federation of Military Force Force, which is the largest government intervention control organization in wartime, by expanding and reorganizing the National Federation of Military Force for the purpose of mobilization of human and material resources of Joseon in the course of the aggressive War. All organizations and individuals of Shipbuilding were organized and organized for each region and work place. The National Federation of Military Force was composed of guidance organization, central organization, and local organization, and the guidance organization was established and deliberated on the basic policies. The central organization established the president and the Vice-Governor, and the president and vice-president were composed of advisers, directors, participating, members of the National Assembly, and members of the Do governor. The President Do governor was replaced with the Do governor, and the Do Council member was called the Do governor, who was commissioned by the President from among the members of the Do Council and other persons with knowledge and experience of various organizations.

(12) At the time of October 1940, the Korean War Veterans Association was composed of six Japanese experts, including the Shipbuilding Commander, and nine other Japanese workers, including the non-party 2 and the non-party 2, the 14 directors, the 32 directors, the 32 members of the Japanese Council, the 50 directors, the 68 members of the Joseon, and the 68 members of the Staff. At the same time, the Kukkiwon was mainly composed of the senior senior, the non-party 2, and the representatives of various social organizations.

(13) Since then, various organizations that supplement the Korean Federation’s general power boat were organized, one of which was organized on October 22, 1941 (hereinafter referred to as the “Korean Federation”), and as seen earlier, the deceased Nonparty 1 (hereinafter referred to as the “Nonindicted 1”) participated in the Plaintiff’s general power boat as promoters at the time.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 3 through 7 evidence, Eul 1 to 15, Eul 2-1 to 3, Eul 3-1 to 5, Eul 4 evidence, and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

(1) Whether the act of pro-Japanese under Article 2 subparagraph 7 of the Special Act is a pro-Japanese act

(A) Article 2 Subparag. 7 of the Special Act provides that “an act of receiving or succeeding to a commission due to the success of mergers in the Republic of Korea during the period from the date of the first war of Rus and the Japanese War from August 15, 1945,” and Article 2 Subparag. 7 of the same Act provides that “an act of causing or succeeding to a commission due to the participation of mergers in the Republic of Korea during the period from August 7, 1910” was committed by the deceased non-party 1 (the deceased non-party 1) from October 7, 1910 to a subsequent act under Article 2 of the Decree on the Hare of Shipbuilding. Therefore, it shall be deemed that the deceased non-party 1 (the non-party 1) was committed as the official act

(B) In light of the following circumstances revealed in the argument in the instant case, it is difficult to view that the deceased Nonparty 1 (the deceased Nonparty 1) was engaged in the commission of the work after the merger between Korea and Japan.

(1) Although Article 5 of the Korea-Japan Merger Treaty provides that “a person who is a Korean national who has rendered meritorious deeds and is recognized as appropriate for the commendation shall be granted a decoration and a solatium.” However, Article 2 of the Korea-Japan Decree provides that “a person who is a current blood relative of king and who is not granted the honorable treatment of yellow satisfaction or who is a person who has rendered distinguished services, and a person who is a blood relative of king and who is not given the honorable treatment of yellow satisfaction without having contributed to the merger of Korea shall be determined as a person eligible for a separate commission. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that a person who was awarded a commission pursuant to Article 2 of the Korea-Japan Decree, and thus, was awarded a commission as a contribution to the merger of Korea-Japan.”

② The official duty carried out by the deceased non-party 1 (the deceased non-party 1) before receiving an action from the Japanese colonial rule was not related to pro-Japanese activities, and the age of Non-party 1 (the deceased non-party 1) at the time was also 20 years old. No other evidence exists to recognize that the non-party 1 (the counter-party 1) contributed to the merger of Korea (the counter-party 4) (the counter-party 1) (the counter-party 1 (the counter-party 4) was the reason for granting the act of the deceased non-party 1 (the counter-party 1) and the fact that the deceased non-party 3's contribution to the counter-party 3 (the counter-party 4) is only referred to as the fact that the deceased non-party 1 (the counter-party 1) was high, and no kind of friendship is written.)

③ On August 1, 1912, the deceased non-party 1 (the deceased non-party 1 (the deceased non-party 1) received the Korea Joint Memorial (the deceased non-party 1) as the "person who has contributed to the former one-day relationship". However, there is no evidence to deem that the deceased non-party 1 (the deceased non-party 1) was friendly before receiving the commission of the above work after the above work, and the deceased non-party 1 (the deceased non-party 1) was evaluated as having received the above commemorative hall, and there is no material to deem that the deceased non-party 1 was friendly since the above work, and the fact that the deceased non-party 1 (the counter-party 1) received the Korea Joint Memorial (the counter-party 1) after about 1 year and 10 months after the completion of the work. In light of the fact that the deceased non-party 1 (the counter-party 1) received the Korea Joint Memorial (the counter-party 1) by making a contribution to the merger of Korea.

④ Under the Act on the Punishment of Anti-National Acts (repealed by Act No. 3, Sept. 22, 1948; repealed by Act No. 176, Feb. 14, 1951) which was enacted to place pro-Japanese and anti-national actors in the past, the scope of pro-Japanese and anti-national acts is limited to “any person who has been able to do so from the Japanese government” but Article 2 Subparag. 7 of the Special Act provides that “any person subject to the application of Article 2 Subparag. 7 of the Special Act is subject to the disadvantage that the ownership of land, etc. retroactively reverted to the State under the special Act on the Reversion of Property of Pro-Japanese and Anti-National Collaborative Acts is deprived of property rights, so the statutes on the scope of the subject shall not be expanded or analogically interpreted to the disadvantage of the other party to the disposition.

⑤ Since the Shipbuilding’s class selected as the object of Japan’s class action is not based on the sole standard of “Korea-Japan merger,” it was considered as well as the official history and family literature, etc., it was included in Nonparty 5, Nonparty 6, Nonparty 7, Nonparty 8, Nonparty 9, and Nonparty 10, etc., who were employed in opposition to the Japan’s class action, instead of Nonparty 4, who was employed in opposition to the Japan’s class action, were included in the Japan’s class action (not only refused the class action but also no kind of kind action revealed), and the class action of the Joseon’s class in the Joseon class, as a matter of course, included it in its scope and considered it as the object of Japanese class action. Accordingly, considering the fact that the head of the king’s class, who was alive at the time of Korea-Japan merger, was awarded all the kind of action except for the kind of son who was selected as the object of Japanese class action, it can not be inferred immediately from the mere fact that it was an object of Japanese class action.

6) The defendant asserts to the effect that the deceased non-party 1 (the deceased non-party 1) did not refuse to act for the purpose of the colonial rule as a head of the king's class, and that the act in question was an expression of intent to cooperate with the colonial rule of the Japanese colonial rule, and that even if he did not act actively, the act in question implied or complied with the illegal act in question was in itself a cooperation that makes it possible to merge.

However, even if the deceased non-party 1 (the deceased non-party 1) was a king-man, who did not actively resist the Japanese colonial system until the Japanese merger, and did not refuse to do so, and eventually, after the Japanese merger, the Japanese colonial rule was actively cooperation with the Japanese colonial rule, it is difficult to accept as a interpretation exceeding the ordinary meaning of the text of the Special Act, recognizing that the Japanese colonial rule only received the "act" by having only the Japanese colonial rule, which does not involve an active kind of friendship after the Japanese merger, with the Japanese colonial rule, only the Japanese colonial rule, which was awarded to the Japanese colonial rule after the Japanese merger.

(2) Whether the act of pro-Japanese under Article 2 subparagraph 17 of the Special Act is a pro-Japanese act

(A) Article 2 Subparag. 17 of the Special Act provides that "the head or executive officer of the main external group or the external group of the governing body of Japanese colonialism, who is the head or executive officer of the governing body of Japanese colonialism, actively cooperates in the Japanese colonial rule and the war against aggression," the deceased non-party 1 (the non-party 1 (the non-party 1) committed an ordinary ethnic act from July 1939 to October 16, 1940, and the above member was reorganized into the member of the National Federation of the National Academy of Mobilization on the basis of the reorganization of the Republic of Korea from October 16, 1940 to August 15, 1945."

(B) In light of the above facts and the following circumstances revealed in the arguments in this case, it is reasonable to view that the deceased non-party 1 (the non-party 1 (the counter-party 1) was engaged in active cooperation in the Japanese colonial rule and the war against aggression while serving as executive officers in each of the above groups, which are the major external groups of the governing body of Japanese colonial rule. The plaintiff's assertion in this part is without merit.

① On July 1939, from around May 194 to May 1942, 194, the deceased non-party 1 (hereinafter referred to as the “non-party 1”) served as a member of the National Academy for Mobilization of the National Assembly and the National Federation for Support of the National History. The regulations stipulate that members of the Council are members of the Council; the members of the Council commissioned by the president or the president of each of the above associations from among the members of various organizations and other persons of learning and experience; the members of the Council are mainly comprised of senior members of the Central Council or non-governmental members, and the representatives of various social organizations; each of the above teams has various local organizations or sub-organizations under the Central Organization; since the members of the Council were to serve as a member of the Central Organization, the role performed by each of the above teams cannot be deemed to be less than the first executive members of the Central Organization under Article 2 subparag. 17 of the Special Act.

② The term of office of the members of the Council appears to be one year, but the deceased non-party 1 (the non-party 1) continuously worked as a member of the Council for three years, and the deceased non-party 1 (the non-party 1) act as a director and the chairperson of the Council for Shipbuilding Happiness while working as a member of the Council. On October 22, 1941, the deceased non-party 2 participated as a member of the Council for Cho Jong-sung (the non-party 1 was absorbed into the above Council around 1942) which is a supplementary organization of the National Association for the National Association for Cho Woo-gun, which was a supplementary organization of the National Association for the National Assembly for the purpose of national defense donation, and actively collected national defense donation on January 28, 1942. It is sufficient to view it as an act of active cooperation in the Japanese rule-making and war.

(3) Whether the act of pro-Japanese under Article 2 subparagraph 19 of the Special Act is a pro-Japanese act

(A) Article 2 Subparag. 19 of the Special Act provides that "any person who was awarded a reward or decoration in cooperation with the colonial rule of the Japanese colonial rule and the war against aggression and who significantly cooperates with the Japanese colonial rule" during the period from August 15, 1945 from the commencement of the seizure of national sovereignty by Japanese colonial rule, and the deceased non-party 1 (the deceased non-party 1) received private bonds of KRW 168,000 on January 13, 191 from Japanese colonial rule, and received private bonds of KRW 168,00 on August 1, 1912. The deceased non-party 1 received the chapter of the Korean Memorial Order on December 5, 1912, the deceased non-party 1 received the chapter of the Korean Memorial Order on December 4, 1916, and December 14, 1935, as seen above, the above acts of the Korean colonial rule as to whether they were the above acts.

(B) On January 13, 1911, the deceased non-party 1 (the deceased non-party 1) received the government bonds of 168,000 won on January 13, 191, and on August 1, 1912, the deceased non-party 1 (the deceased non-party 1) received the Korean National Cemetery. However, there is no material to deem that the deceased non-party 1 (the deceased non-party 1) received the deceased non-party 1 received the deceased non-party 1 (the deceased non-party 1) as the deceased non-party 1's contribution of pro-Japanese, and the deceased non-party 1 (the deceased non-party 1) received the deceased non-party 1's contribution of pro-Japanese, and it is difficult to conclude that the deceased non-party 1 received the deceased non-party 1 (the deceased non-party 1)'s cooperation in the Korean War with the Japanese colonial rule.

(C) However, in light of the above facts recognized and the following circumstances revealed in the pleading of this case, it is reasonable to view that the west, which the deceased non-party 1 (the counter-party 1) received from Japan, is a reward or decoration received in return for cooperation in the Japanese colonial rule and the war of aggression. Therefore, this part alone is sufficient to deem that the deceased non-party 1 (the counter-party 1) committed a pro-Japanese act under Article 2 subparag. 19 of the Special Act. Accordingly, the plaintiff's assertion in this part is without merit.

① Article 1 of the Western Ordinance which provides for the west of the Joseon Doctrine’s Doctrine’s Doctrine’s Doctrine’s Doctrine’s Doctrine’s Doctrine’s Doctrine’s Doctrine’s Doctrine’s Doctrine’s Doctrine’s Doctrine’s Doctrine’s Doctrine’s Doctrine’s Doctrine’s Doctrine’s Doctrine’s Doctrine’s Doctrine’s Doctrine’s Doctrine’s Doctrine’s Doc.

② According to Article 5 of the above Western Ordinance, the class 4 or higher is entitled to the honorable treatment based on writing. Of that, when considering that the class 2 of the first class is a commission under the Decree on Shipbuilding and Happiness, it is defined as the second class order corresponding to the second class order. Although the deceased non-party 1 (the deceased non-party 1) was receiving the honorable treatment equivalent to the second class after receiving the commission, and the deceased non-party 1 (the deceased non-party 1) was at a level lower than the second class, the above (the above) and the writing were different in terms of the purpose of the award and received the above amount based on a separate career or activity, regardless of whether the class of the act was done, it can be deemed that the first class of the class 19 of Article 2 of the Special Act was a pro-national act provided for in Article 2.19.

③ In around 1914, the deceased non-party 1 (the deceased non-party 1) committed a set of the deceased non-party 1 (the deceased non-party 1) as the representative of the deceased status of Korea, from 1915 to 1915, who was the adviser of the office of the 300th century, who was a pro-Japanese organization. From 1917 to 1917, the deceased non-party 1 was the adviser of the 300th century, who was a pro-Japanese organization. In addition, from around 1925, the deceased non-party 1 (the deceased non-party 1 (the non-party 1) was the advisor of the 300th century, who was a pro-Japanese organization. In addition, the deceased non-party 1 (the counter-party 1) was acting as the advisor of the 1925 Japanese colonial rule. It is sufficient to view that the deceased non

(4) Sub-determination

The deceased non-party 1 (the deceased non-party 1) cannot be deemed to have committed pro-Japanese acts under Article 2 subparagraph 7 of the Special Act, but he committed pro-Japanese acts under Article 2 subparagraph 17 and Article 19 of the Special Act.

4. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit.

[Attachment]

Judges Sung Sung (Presiding Judge)