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

The Plaintiff’s assertion at the trial does not differ from the allegations in the first instance trial, and the first instance court’s determination rejecting the Plaintiff’s claim even after re-examination of the statements No. 3-1 and No. 2 submitted in the first instance trial along with the Plaintiff’s assertion. The reasoning for this case is as follows: “No. 12 of the first instance judgment” is added to “4 of the first instance judgment (including the number)”; “No. 18-4 of the fourth instance judgment” is the same as the ground of the first instance judgment; thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant was forced to mobilization of the deceased at the time when it was forced by Japanese colonial rule No. 420, and that the Defendant did not have any duty to provide compensation for injury to the deceased at the time when it was forced to mobilization of the deceased at the time of the first instance trial (the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant could not have been forced by mobilization of the deceased at the time when it was forced by Japanese rule No. 2 and that the Defendant could not have any other duty to provide compensation for injury to the deceased’s.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.

Judge Park Jong-soo

Judges Lee Hyun-woo