1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The deceased B (hereinafter “the deceased”) died on June 2, 1980.

B. On March 22, 2005, on the deceased’s name C (hereinafter “D”) entered into the Incheon Metropolitan City Working Committee for the Inspection of the Truth of Damage Caused by Forced Mobilization under the Japanese colonial Rule (hereinafter “Working Committee for Inspection”) reported damage to the effect that the deceased’s life was cut off due to forced mobilization of the deceased in the form of coal mine in North Sea by Japanese colonial rule around 1940 and forced the worker’s life.

C. On March 31, 2011, the commission decided on March 31, 201, pursuant to Article 26 of the Special Act on Assistance to the Force Mobilization Investigation and Military Mobilization Victims, etc. (hereinafter “Compulsory Mobilization Investigation Act”), the deceased constituted a victim of forced mobilization during the period of a large-scale dispute.

On June 10, 2014, E, D, F, G, and the Plaintiff, as their children, applied for the payment of consolation benefits for disability to the Committee.

E. On July 24, 2015, the commission dismissed the application for the payment of consolation benefits on the ground that “The deceased was forced to be mobilized from around 1940 to August 1945 by Japanese labor and returned to a Japanese region, but there is no ground to recognize the fact of suffering from injury or disease during the compulsory mobilization period or during the process of returning to the Republic of Korea.”

F. Although Plaintiff, E, F, and G filed an application for reexamination with the Committee on the said dismissal ruling, the Committee rejected the application for reexamination on July 22, 2016, on the ground that there was no reason to revise the said dismissal ruling on July 22, 2016, after conducting telephone investigations, etc. against Plaintiff D, E, and Plaintiff.

(g) On December 31, 2015, the Defendant succeeded to affairs under its jurisdiction pursuant to Article 19(4) of the Compulsory Mobilization Investigation Act as the period of existence of the commission expires.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 1 through 5, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful