1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

B, on June 17, 2014, the Committee for the Support of Victims, etc. of Forced Mobilization in Japan (hereinafter “instant Committee”) asserted that it constitutes a bereaved family member as a grandchild of the network C (hereinafter “the victim”) mobilized by overseas force, and submitted a letter of designation of the representative of bereaved family members in the name of D, E, F, and G when filing an application for the payment of consolation money, etc.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant application.” On March 26, 2015, the instant commission rendered a decision to dismiss the application for payment of consolation money, etc. pursuant to Article 24 of the Compulsory Mobilization Investigation Act, on the ground that “The deceased was forced to be mobilized on the daily basis and forced to be mobilized from August 8, 1945 to August 8, 195, and returned to the same workplace of Japan.” However, it is recognized that “B does not fall under the bereaved family members under Article 3 of the Special Act on the Investigation into Forced Mobilization during the Japanese War and the Support for Victims, etc. of Overseas Mobilization (hereinafter “Compulsory Mobilization Investigation Act”) as the grandchildren of Form C, and that “B does not fall under the bereaved family members under Article 3 of the Special Act on the Investigation into Forced Mobilization and Support for Victims, etc. of Overseas Mobilization.”

(2) On April 29, 2015, the Plaintiff, a dependent on the deceased, requested a review of the instant dismissal decision to the instant commission on April 25, 2015 through B, after delegated B with the application and receipt of consolation money, etc. pursuant to Article 24 of the Enforcement Decree of the Compulsory Mobilization Investigation Act. However, the instant commission rejected the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination pursuant to Article 22 of the Compulsory Mobilization Investigation Act on June 25, 2015 on the ground that “The other party to the instant dismissal decision is B, and the Plaintiff is not entitled to request a review of the instant dismissal decision.”

(hereinafter “instant dismissal order”). Meanwhile, pursuant to Article 19(1) of the Compulsory Mobilization Investigation Act, the term of the instant commission 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] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, the whole pleadings.