(영문) 서울행정법원 2016.4.29. 선고 2015구합72412 판결

Paragraph 1: He shall return to the plaintiff (Appointed Party; hereinafter referred to as the "Plaintiff") the Seo-gu Incheon Metropolitan Government (Site, Replotting) and the Seo-gu Incheon Metropolitan Government D, E, and F (R).

Paragraph 2: Compensation for damages of KRW 10 million shall be made.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff filed an application for the payment of the outstanding amount subsidy under Article 5 of the Special Act on the Investigation of Force Force Forced Mobilization during the Time of Counter-Japan and the Support Committee for the Support of Victims of Overseas Forced Mobilization (hereinafter “the Committee”), which is the first denial of father G (the mother of the Plaintiff is the DoI) on the ground that he/she was forced to be mobilized as labor at a non-workplace workplace located in China on 1940 on the basis of Japanese colonial rule, and that he/she applied for the payment of the outstanding amount subsidy under Article 5 of the Act on the Support of Victims of Forced Mobilization Investigation and Overseas Forced Mobilization (hereinafter “the Committee”), but the Committee of this case rejected the decision on January 22, 2015 on the ground that “the market price related to the outstanding amount to the DoH is not verifiable.” Although the Plaintiff filed an application for reexamination, the Committee of this case rejected the aforementioned decision on July 24, 2015 on the ground that no additional evidence exists to reverse the aforementioned decision.”

B. The Plaintiff filed an application for the payment of consolation money under Article 5 subparag. 2 of the Compulsory Mobilization Investigation Act with the instant commission by asserting that the Plaintiff had been mobilized compulsorily to China as above and suffered injury, but the instant commission rejected the application on October 16, 2015 on the ground that “the Plaintiff is deemed not a bereaved family member under Article 3 of the Compulsory Mobilization Investigation Act.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9 (including the relevant branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Scope of adjudication of this court;

The grounds for the claim that the Plaintiff and the Appointed J (hereinafter referred to as the “Appointed”) filed the instant lawsuit with the purport of claim that the Defendant “the Plaintiff and the Appointed shall pay KRW 1 won to the Plaintiff” as stated in the purport of the claim, and that the Plaintiff filed an application for modification of the purport of the claim on September 25, 2015, and that on October 3, 2015, the fact that the Claimant selected the Plaintiff as the designated party on May 18, 2015, the fact that the Plaintiff selected the Plaintiff on October 3, 2015 is clear.

However, the Plaintiff did not disclose the grounds for the claim under paragraph (1). Since the claim(1) differs from the claim(s) and the claim(s) are entirely different from the claim(s) and the claim(s) are to be amended on the basis of the claim(s). Therefore, the Plaintiff does not accept an application for modification of the claim(s) adding the claim(s) under Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 263 and the main text of Article 262(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, and it is to determine whether the claim(s)

3. Judgment on the main defense of this case

The defendant, as H's early aircraft, does not correspond to the person entitled to the payment of consolation money or the amount of outstanding amount (hereinafter referred to as " consolation money, etc.") as stipulated in Article 3 of the Compulsory Mobilization Investigation Act, and therefore, the plaintiff has no standing to sue in the lawsuit of this case.

In a lawsuit for performance, a person who asserts that he/she has the right to sue, and whether the right to claim the payment, such as consolation money, belongs to the plaintiff is a matter of whether the judgment on the merits exists or not. Therefore, the defendant's principal safety defense is without merit.

4. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. Article 1 of the Compulsory Mobilization Investigation Act provides that "the purpose of this Act is to cure suffering and contribute to national unity by providing consolation money, etc. to victims of forced mobilization abroad and their bereaved family members, etc. in connection with the Agreement on the Settlement of Property and Claims between the Republic of Korea and Japan entered into in 1965, which entered into in 1965." Article 4 subparagraph 2 of the same Act provides that "the State shall pay consolation money of an amount prescribed by Presidential Decree within the limit of 20,000 won per victim of compulsory mobilization abroad or his/her bereaved family members, etc." Article 5 (1) provides that "the State shall provide an amount of consolation money within the limit of 1,000 won per victim of the compulsory mobilization, etc. of this case or 2,000 won per victim of the forced mobilization, etc., together with the consent of the Prime Minister to receive consolation money within the limit of 1,000 won per victim of the forced mobilization."

B. Comprehensively taking account of the above provisions, consolation money under Article 4 subparag. 2 of the Compulsory Mobilization Investigation Act or the subsidy for outstanding amount under Article 5 of the Compulsory Assistance Act is paid to the victims and their bereaved family members, etc. who were forced to mobilized abroad due to forced mobilization abroad during the period from the Pacific War to the Pacific War, and forced to work abroad. As such, the right to claim the payment of consolation money, etc. is recognized only by a specific law as in other countries’ compensation or social security benefits. Therefore, the right to claim the payment of consolation money does not arise solely on the application for the payment of consolation money, etc., and the right to claim the payment of consolation money, etc. is created only when the Commission made a decision to pay consolation money, etc. pursuant to Article 28 of the Compulsory Mobilization Investigation Act.

C. However, the Plaintiff filed an application for the payment of consolation money and the outstanding amount subsidy, but was dismissed by the commission of this case, and did not receive a decision to pay consolation money, etc. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit without further review.

5. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed without merit, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition.