1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details and details of the disposition;

A. B (the father of the Plaintiff) was forced to be mobilized to the mining center in the Republic of Korea on September 1943, 194 by Japanese colonial rule, and returned to the Republic of Korea around October 1945, and died on December 15, 1982.

B. On July 6, 2005, the Committee for Inspection of the Truth of Forced Mobilization Damage under the Japanese colonial Rule decided B as the "victim of Force Mobilization under the Japanese colonial Rule" pursuant to the Special Act on Inspection of the Truth of Forced Mobilization Damage under the Japanese colonial Rule (repealed by Act No. 10143, Mar. 22, 2010).

C. Administrative affairs belonging to the committee to ascertain the truth of the mobilization damage by Japanese colonial rule were succeeded to the committee to support the investigation of the compulsory mobilization damage by Japanese colonial rule and the victims, etc. of forced mobilization by foreign means pursuant to Article 3(1) of the Addenda of the Special Act on Support for the Investigation into Force Forced Mobilization during the period of Japanese War (hereinafter “Compulsory Mobilization Investigation Act”) on March 22, 2010 (hereinafter “Compulsory Mobilization Investigation Committee”).

On June 24, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for the payment of consolation money under Article 4 of the Compulsory Mobilization Investigation Act with the compulsory mobilization investigation committee. On July 24, 2015, the compulsory mobilization investigation committee dismissed the application on the ground that “B is deemed to have been mobilized as a worker under the Japanese system and returned to the Republic of Korea, but there is no ground to recognize the fact that the Plaintiff was affected by an injury or disease during that period or during the process of returning to the Republic of Korea.”

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) e.

On December 31, 2015, the period of existence of the forced mobilization investigation committee has expired, and the defendant succeeded to its jurisdiction in accordance with Article 19(4) of the Compulsory Mobilization Investigation Act.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, and 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion B is that, inasmuch as Article 2 subparag. 3(a) of the Compulsory Mobilization Investigation Act provides that, inasmuch as the Plaintiff suffered from an injury on a bridge while being mobilized by force and serving as a worker under the Japanese colonial rule, he/she is forced to mobilization abroad.