1. The part of the decision to dismiss an application for reexamination among the lawsuits in this case shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims.

1. Case summary

A. The Plaintiff’s father, based on the Japanese colonial system around 1940, was unable to be mobilized as a labor force in the coal mine located in North Korean Dos.

On June 4, 2010, the Plaintiff applied for the payment of consolation money under the Special Act on the Investigation into Force Forced Mobilization and Support for Victims, etc. of Mobilization by Foreign Forced Mobilization (hereinafter referred to as the “Committee”) to the father through the Msan market for the investigation into damage caused by compulsory mobilization during the period of the World War and the Support Committee for Victims, etc. of Mobilization by Foreign Forced Mobilization (hereinafter referred to as the “Committee”).

On November 23, 2012, the Committee recognized the Plaintiff’s father as a victim of compulsory overseas mobilization under Article 2 of the Compulsory Mobilization Investigation Act, and decided that the Plaintiff, who was the Plaintiff, as a bereaved family member under Article 3 of the same Act, should pay KRW 20,000,000 as consolation money to the Plaintiff.

B. On June 30, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Committee for the payment of consolation money under the Compulsory Mobilization Investigation Act to B on the ground that the Plaintiff, who was the Plaintiff, died during the forced mobilization period.

On March 26, 2015, the commission decided that the plaintiff's application for consolation money is dismissed pursuant to Article 22 of the forced mobilization investigation Act because B does not constitute a victim of the mobilization of foreign force under Article 2 of the forced mobilization investigation Act.

(hereinafter referred to as “decision to dismiss an application for payment of consolation money”).

On May 4, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for re-deliberation with the Committee against a decision to dismiss an application for payment of consolation benefits.

On June 25, 2015, the commission decided that the plaintiff's request for review is dismissed pursuant to Article 24 of the Compulsory Mobilization Investigation Act, since there is no new fact to reverse the original decision.

(hereinafter referred to as “determination to dismiss an application for review”). D.

On the other hand, the term of existence of the committee under Article 19(1) of the Compulsory Mobilization Investigation Act has expired as of the date of closing the argument in this case.