logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 2015.10.07 2015구합193
보상금등지급신청기각결정취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On March 1, 1945, the Plaintiff was drafted under the Japanese colonial rule, and served in the Army Training Center at the time of the Si, and on September 2, 1945, and on July 10, 2007, the Plaintiff was determined as a victim of forced mobilization under the Japanese colonial rule pursuant to Article 17 of the Special Act on the Inspection, etc. of the Truth of the Damage from Forced Mobilization under the Japanese colonial rule (Article 10143 of the Act on March 22, 2010 (hereinafter “Special Act on the Investigation of Forced Mobilization”).

B. On June 22, 1965, the Defendant entered into an agreement between Japan and Japan on the resolution of problems concerning property and claims and on economic cooperation (hereinafter “Agreement on Korea-Japan Claim”). The agreement includes a content that Japan would provide 300 million US dollars free of charge to the Defendant for 10 years (hereinafter “economic cooperation funds”).

C. The Defendant established the Act on Support for Victims, etc. of Compulsory Mobilization before and after the former Pacific War (amended by the Act on the Force Mobilization Investigation before and after March 22, 2010; hereinafter “the Pacific War Support Act”) and the Act on the Force Mobilization Investigation before and after concluding the Korea-Japan Agreement, and accordingly, paid consolation benefits to those who were determined as victims of forced mobilization of forced mobilization during the Japanese colonial period and their bereaved family members.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 10, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the conclusion of the Plaintiff’s claim agreement, the claims held by the victims of domestic compulsory mobilization, such as the Plaintiff, against Japan were extinguished, and the Defendant was paid compensation to the victims of domestic compulsory mobilization in lieu of Japan according to the Korea-Japan claim agreement.

arrow