1. All of the main and ancillary claims of this case shall be dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion was forced to be mobilized within the Republic of Korea on July 10, 2007, immediately after the Pacific War, and was repealed by the Special Act on Finding the Truth of Forced Mobilization Damage under the Japanese colonial Rule, etc. on March 22, 2010, “Special Act on Finding the Truth of Forced Mobilization Damage during the Pacific War, etc.” (Act No. 10143, March 22, 2010).

B. The term “Special Act on the Investigation into Force Forced Mobilization during the Time of the Counter-Japan and Support for Victims, etc. of Overseas Force Mobilization” refers to the Act on the Investigation into Forced Mobilization.

(2) Article 17 of the former Act on Support for Victims of Compulsory Mobilization before and after the Pacific War (amended by Act No. 10143, Mar. 22, 2010) provides consolation money, etc. to the victims of forced mobilization who were forced to be mobilized overseas pursuant to Article 17. However, as for the victims of forced mobilization who were forced to be mobilized overseas, the consolation money, etc. is paid pursuant to the Act on Support for Victims of Compulsory Mobilization, etc. of Military Mobilization before and after the Pacific War, or the Compulsory Mobilization Investigation Act. On the other hand, as for the victims of forced mobilization, such as the Plaintiff, the consolation money

There is no reasonable ground to treat different persons who were mobilized overseas from those who were mobilized overseas, but only those who were mobilized overseas based on the region of forced mobilization by the State would discriminate against those who were forced overseas, such as the Plaintiff, without reasonable grounds, and violate the obligation of the State to protect the fundamental rights of the people.

Therefore, the State has a constitutional obligation to enact a law on the support of victims of domestic compulsory mobilization, such as victims of foreign compulsory mobilization, and to take procedures for compensation.

Therefore, the plaintiff primarily sought consolation money from the defendant, and ② the victim of domestic compulsory mobilization before and after the Pacific War was made by compulsory mobilization, such as the victim of overseas compulsory mobilization.