2. The plaintiff A-.

The father deceased C(hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") of the plaintiffs were forced to be mobilized in Japan by Japan on August 1943, 194, and died after returning to Korea on August 1945.

Plaintiff

On May 28, 2014, A filed an application with the Defendant for consolation money under the Special Act on the Investigation into Force Forced Mobilization during Japanese War and the Support for Victims, etc. of Mobilization of Forced Mobilization in Foreign Countries (hereinafter “The Support Act for Victims of Victims”) by asserting that the Deceased was forced to mobilize abroad under the Japanese colonial rule and suffered an obstacle to the injury.

Plaintiff

B did not make the above application.

On October 16, 2014, the Defendant rendered a decision to pay consolation money to the Plaintiff that “The deceased was forced by force from around 1943 to August 1945 to the B, so it shall be determined as a victim of forced overseas mobilization falling under class 11 subparag. 9 of the physical disability grade pursuant to Article 2 of the Victim Support Act and Article 3(1) [Attachment Table 1] of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and shall be determined as a bereaved family member pursuant to Article 3 of the Victim Support Act, and the Plaintiffs who are the deceased’s children shall be determined as the bereaved family member pursuant to Article 3 of the Victim Support Act, and the Plaintiffs shall be paid a total of three million won consolation money for the injury.”

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). Accordingly, Plaintiff A filed an application for reexamination with the Defendant on November 17, 2014, but the Defendant dismissed the said application on April 30, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence Nos. 11 and 18 (including serial numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the whole purport of the argument as to the legitimacy of the lawsuit of this case among plaintiff Eul's lawsuit of this case, whether the lawsuit of this case is legitimate or not, the plaintiff Eul did not file a claim against the defendant for the payment of consolation money, and that the defendant did not take the disposition of this case against the above plaintiff. Thus, there is no legal interest to seek the revocation of the disposition of this case against the above plaintiff.

Plaintiff

B Of the lawsuits in B.