1. All of the instant lawsuits are dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On June 26, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an application for the payment of consolation benefits to the “Support Committee for the Investigation of Damage Caused by Forced Overseas Mobilization and Mobilization Victims, etc. (hereinafter “instant Committee”) on the ground that “the Plaintiff, as a private sector type of the network B (hereinafter “the victim of forced overseas mobilization”), should receive bereaved family consolation benefits pursuant to the Special Act on the Support for Forced Mobilization of Forced Overseas Mobilization during the Time of World War and the Support for Victims of Mobilization of Forced Overseas Mobilization, etc.” (hereinafter “Compulsory Mobilization Investigation Act”).

B. On October 24, 2012, the instant commission rendered a decision to dismiss the Plaintiff’s application for payment of consolation benefits pursuant to Article 22 of the Compulsory Mobilization Act on the ground that “The deceased was forced to be mobilized as a worker in Japan under the Japanese colonial rule in 1944 and was missing during or back to the Republic of Korea until August 15, 1945, and thus, constitutes a victim of forced overseas mobilization pursuant to Article 2 of the same Act, but the Plaintiff is not a bereaved family member pursuant to Article 3 of the same Act during the period of his death as the deceased’s death penalty.”

(hereinafter “Prior Decision”). C.

The Plaintiff filed an application for review on December 20, 2012, but the instant commission dismissed the application for review on the ground that “the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff would pay consolation benefits to the deceased deceased person as he/she died of all of his/her bereaved family members under the Compulsory Mobilization Investigation Act is not a new content to reverse the initial decision.”

(hereinafter “instant subsequent decision”) D.

Meanwhile, pursuant to Article 19(1) of the Compulsory Mobilization Investigation Act, the term of existence of the instant committee expired on December 31, 2015, and the Defendant succeeded to the affairs under its jurisdiction pursuant to Article 19(4) of the same Act.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 7, Eul evidence 1 to 3 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The attachment to the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes shall be as follows;

3. The lawsuit of this case is legitimate.