1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 28, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for the payment of the outstanding amount under the Special Act on the Investigation into Force Forced Mobilization during the Time Limit and Support for Victims, etc. of Military Mobilization (hereinafter “the Committee”) with respect to the outstanding amount that was not received by the deceased, who was forced to be mobilized under the overall system, through the children of the deceased I (hereinafter “the deceased”) through the Young-si market, to grant the unpaid amount subsidy under the Special Act on the Support of Victims, etc. of Military Mobilization Forced Mobilization during the Time Limit Limit and Overseas Forced Mobilization (hereinafter “Compulsory Mobilization Investigation Act”).

B. On March 26, 2015, the commission decided that the Plaintiff’s application for the payment of the outstanding amount was dismissed pursuant to Article 22 of the Compulsory Mobilization Investigation Act on the ground that “Although it is recognized that the deceased was forced to mobilize by Japanese colonial rule, and that it was forced to work for the labor workers belonging to Switzerland in the construction site of the Russado and the airfield located in the Japanese Hokikdo from June 1943 to October 1945, and that it does not constitute a victim of the outstanding amount under Article 2 of the same Act, since the document related to the outstanding amount is not verified, it does not constitute a victim of the outstanding amount.”

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.

On the other hand, as of the date of the closing of argument in the instant case, the term of existence of the committee under Article 19(1) of the Compulsory Mobilization Investigation Act expired, and accordingly, the Defendant succeeded to the administrative affairs under the jurisdiction of the committee at the expiration

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1-1, 2-2, Eul evidence 1-1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion made the instant disposition to the effect that the Plaintiff’s request for the payment of the outstanding amount was rejected on the ground that the documents related to the outstanding amount were not verified even though it acknowledged the fact that the Deceased was forced to be mobilized by force under the Japanese colonial rule.

However, from June 1943, the deceased was forced to be mobilized.