Whether a North Korean resident constitutes “a person who has no nationality of the Republic of Korea” subject to exclusion from consolation money under the Special Act on the Investigation into Force Forced Mobilization during the period of a Japanese War and Support for Victims of Mobilization of Foreign Forced Mobilization (negative)

The purpose of the Special Act on Assistance to the Forced Mobilization, etc. to Victims of Overseas Mobilization during the Pacific War (hereinafter “Compulsory Mobilization Investigation Act”) was to relieve their pain and contribute to national unity by providing consolation money, etc. at a humanitarian level with regard to the “Agreement on the Settlement of Property and Claims between the Republic of Korea and Japan before and after the Pacific War,” which was concluded in 1965. In addition to the legislative intent of the above Act and the details and contents of the aforementioned Act, the aforementioned Act were to provide consolation money, etc. at a humanitarian level to relieve the suffering from the forced mobilization of the Japanese War, and rather to compensate or compensate the suffering from the suffering from the forced mobilization of the Japanese War, and the legislative purport of the Act does not necessarily coincide with the legislative intent of the Republic of Korea to determine the scope and scope of support, and the Constitution of the Republic of Korea that excludes North Korean residents from the scope of the above North Korean territory of the Republic of Korea, and thus, it does not necessarily mean that the legislative purport of North Korean territory of the Republic of Korea should be excluded from the scope of North Korean territory.

Articles 2, 4, and 7 subparag. 4 of the Special Act on the Investigation into Force Forced Mobilization during the Time of the National Defense and Support for Victims, etc. of Mobilization of Foreign Forced Mobilization

Constitutional Court en banc Order 2011Hun-Ba139 Decided December 23, 2015 (HunGong231, 84)

Plaintiff

The Minister of Government Administration

Seoul High Court Decision 2010Nu46182 decided September 8, 2011

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Article 2 and Article 4 of the Special Act on the Investigation into Forced Mobilization during the Time of War and Support for Victims of Mobilization of Overseas Forced Mobilization (hereinafter “Compulsory Mobilization Investigation Act”) provides that a person who was killed or missing, or a victim or his/her bereaved family members of a person who was wounded during or during the period of mobilization to a foreign country by force from April 1, 1938 to August 15, 1945 or who was wounded due to an injury determined by Presidential Decree, shall be provided with certain consolation benefits, etc. (Articles 2 and 4). Article 7 subparag. 4 of the same Act provides that “A person who does not have the nationality of the Republic of Korea” is excluded from the scope of support.

The Compulsory Mobilization Investigation Act was enacted with the aim of resolving problems regarding property and claims between the Republic of Korea and Japan in 1965 and contributing to national unity by providing consolation benefits, etc. from a humanitarian perspective to victims of forced mobilization abroad before and after the Pacific War, their bereaved family members, etc. In addition to such legislative intent and details as well as specific subjects of support and details of consolation benefits, etc. ① The above Act merely seeks to provide consolation benefits, etc. at a humanitarian level in order to relieve the suffering from the forced mobilization of Japan in a special situation of the Pacific War, and does not compensate or compensate the suffering from the victims or their bereaved family members. In determining the scope and objects of such support, it is reasonable to exclude North Korean residents from the scope of the above provision of North Korea’s Republic of Korea’s legislative consolation benefits under the Korean Constitution, regardless of its legislative purport and purport, and to exclude North Korean residents from the scope of the provision of North Korea’s Republic of Korea’s legislative consolation benefits under the Korean Constitution.

2. citing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, the court below acknowledged the fact that the deceased was mobilized as labor in the Japanese region on May 1, 1943 and returned to the North Korean region at the time of June 25 after he was mobilized as labor in the Japanese region after May 1, 1945. However, Article 2 subparagraphs 1 and 2 of the Provisional Ordinance on Nationality No. 11 of the Republic of Korea, which was enforced at the time of the enactment of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea, stipulates that a person who was born as a captain shall have the nationality of Joseon. Article 3 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea provides that the requirements for becoming a citizen of the Republic of Korea shall be prescribed by the law, and Article 100 of the current Act provides that the person who acquired the citizenship of the Republic of Korea pursuant to the above Provisional Ordinance upon the enactment of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea shall have the effect on the deceased's promulgation of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea on July 17, 1948 and thus, determined that the deceased's sovereignty of the Republic of Korea shall be excluded.

In light of the above legal principles, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the interpretation of objects of exclusion from consolation benefits under the Compulsory Mobilization Investigation Act.

3. Meanwhile, in an administrative litigation seeking the revocation of an administrative disposition, a disposition agency may add or change other grounds only to the extent that they are deemed identical to the grounds for the original disposition and the basic factual relations. However, the fact that “the degree of injury to the deceased and there is no evidence that the Plaintiff constitutes a bereaved family member who is a beneficiary of consolation benefits,” which is the ground for the disposition of this case, cannot be deemed identical to the original reason that the Defendant “the deceased constitutes a person who has no nationality of the Republic of Korea,” which is the ground for the disposition of this case. Thus, it is inappropriate for the lower court to determine whether the disposition was lawful by deeming the added ground as one of the grounds for disposition, but as seen earlier, the lower court’s determination that the disposition of this case was unlawful, cannot be deemed to have affected the conclusion of the judgment. This part of the grounds for

4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench, on December 31, 2015, pursuant to Article 19(1) of the Compulsory Mobilization Investigation Act, the term of existence of the Support Committee for the Mobilization Damage Investigation and the Mobilization Victims, etc. for Foreign Force Mobilization Victims, etc., expired as of December 31, 2015. Since the Minister of Government Administration and Home Affairs succeeded to the duties under his jurisdiction pursuant to Article 14(6) and the proviso of Article 13(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act, the Defendant

Justices Kim So-young (Presiding Justice)