2017Guhap85108 Compensation

A

Korea

March 20, 2018

April 19, 2018

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 23,000,000.

1. The plaintiff's assertion

As a victim mobilized by the plaintiff during the period of the Japanese-Japan War B, the plaintiff was determined to pay KRW 23 million in total as compensation for damage to B, such as the forced mobilization investigation during the period of the Japanese-Japan War and the victims of the mobilization by foreign force (hereinafter referred to as the "Committee").

However, on the basis of the fact that the plaintiff lost materials about KRW 20 million, the defendant argued that the committee of this case decided to pay KRW 3 million of injury injury consolation benefits to his bereaved family members, and that the defendant shall pay all of KRW 23 million that the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff.

2. Judgment on the defendant's main defense

The defendant asserts that, as the plaintiff was aware of as the plaintiff B, it is not included in the scope of bereaved family members under Article 3 (1) of the Special Act on the Investigation into Forced Mobilization and Support for Victims of Mobilization of Foreign Forced Mobilization (hereinafter "Compulsory Mobilization Investigation Act"), there is no standing to sue because there is no legal interest in seeking payment of compensation for damage to B.

However, the lawsuit of this case is a party suit seeking payment of consolation money against the defendant under the Compulsory Mobilization Investigation Act on the premise that the decision to pay consolation money under the Act on the Forced Mobilization Investigation against B was made, and the issue of whether the plaintiff, who is the rash, can seek consolation money to the defendant including the scope of bereaved family members under the Forced Mobilization Investigation Act shall be determined within the main issue. Thus, the defendant's main

3. Determination as to the cause of action

For the purpose of Article 3(1) of the Compulsory Mobilization Investigation Act, the term “bereaved family member” refers to a person determined as a bereaved family member pursuant to Article 8 subparag. 3 and subparag. 6, among the victims who have been mobilized overseas, those who died or were missing among the victims, those who fall under the spouse and children, parents, grandchildren, brothers and sisters, and siblings of the victims who died or were missing. In addition, Article 4 subparag. 2 of the same Act provides that the State shall pay an amount determined by Presidential Decree based on the degree of disability up to 20,000 won per victim of the forced mobilization overseas, based on the degree of disability per victim of the forced mobilization overseas, as consolation benefits, and Article 3(1) [Attachment 2] of the Enforcement Decree of the Compulsory Mobilization Investigation Act provides that the amount of consolation benefits shall be paid KRW 3 million with respect to physical disability grades 11 through 14. Meanwhile, Article 33(1) of the Compulsory Mobilization Investigation Act does not exercise the right to receive consolation benefits and outstanding subsidies for one year after delivery of the original decision.

(C) the Act provides that the Act shall apply

According to the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3 and the whole arguments, the plaintiff reported B (1996 death) to the committee for ascertaining the truth of forced mobilization under Japanese colonial Rule No. 27, which is the telegraph of the committee of this case, as a victim of forced mobilization. The committee of this case decided B (1, 3, 31. 201, 31. 1943 and returned to the military unit of Japan in 1945 after being enlisted for military service in 1943, it may be recognized as a victim of forced mobilization under Japanese Rule No. 26 of the Compulsory Mobilization Act, and the plaintiff determined B as a victim of forced mobilization under Article 30 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Protection of Military Service No. 201, 30% of the injury to the victim of this case's body by delegation of 7 children of husband No. 2, 2012, and 30% of the enforcement Decree of the Act. 3151.

According to the above facts, the Plaintiff was satisf of B and does not constitute a child, etc. as defined by Article 3(1) of the Compulsory Mobilization Investigation Act, and there is no right to seek consolation money against B. Moreover, the fact that the Plaintiff was only liable for the payment of consolation money of KRW 3 million falling under Class 12 of the physical disability grade with respect to B is as seen earlier, and there is no evidence to prove that there was a decision to additionally pay consolation money of KRW 20 million to B. In this regard, the Plaintiff has no right to seek consolation money exceeding KRW 3 million for the Defendant. Furthermore, the Defendant did not exercise his right to receive consolation money within 1 year from March 17, 2014 on which the date on which the Plaintiff was served with the above consolation money and thus the right to receive consolation money became extinct by prescription pursuant to Article 33(1) of the Compulsory Mobilization Investigation Act.

Therefore, it is not recognized that there is a right to claim the payment of consolation money of KRW 23 million, which the Plaintiff claims against any mother. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

presiding judge, judge Park Jong-yang

Judges Kim Gin-A

Judges Choi Jae-in

1) The sum totaling seven persons who entrusted the Plaintiff with the application and one child whose life or death is unknown, is the amount equally distributed to eight children.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.