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 January 8, 2014, the Plaintiff asserted that it constitutes a bereaved family member as a child of the network B (hereinafter “the deceased”) who is a victim of compulsory mobilization in foreign countries (hereinafter “the Committee”), and filed an application for the payment of consolation money, etc. with the Support Committee (hereinafter “the Committee”).

B. On June 25, 2015, the instant commission rendered a decision to reject an application for payment of consolation money, etc. pursuant to Article 22 of the Special Act on the Investigation into Force Forced Mobilization during the Japanese War and the Support for Victims of Foreign Force Mobilization (hereinafter “Compulsory Mobilization Investigation Act”), on the ground that the Plaintiff is not a bereaved family member under Article 3 of the same Act, on the ground that “The fact that the deceased was mobilized under the Japanese colonial rule and forced the life of workers in the Russia mine located in the Russia from December 1943 to the end of 1945 is recognized, but the relationship between the Plaintiff and the deceased is not confirmed.”

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.

The Plaintiff filed an application for review on August 17, 2015, but was dismissed on December 17, 2015.

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 its jurisdiction pursuant to Article 19(4) of the same Act.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 5, 6, 7, 12, and 13 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is a victim of compulsory mobilization abroad under Article 2 subparag. 3 of the Compulsory Mobilization Investigation Act. The Plaintiff constitutes a bereaved family member under Article 3 of the same Act as the deceased’s child. Thus, the Defendant’s disposition of this case, which differs from the premise, is unlawful even though the Defendant paid consolation money to the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 4 of the same Act.

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;

C. The term "bereaved family member under Article 3(1) of the Compulsory Mobilization Investigation Act" means the bereaved family member.