beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
Details of the disposition
In 1944, the Plaintiff’s mother-friendly B (CB, hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) returned to the Republic of Korea in 1945 and died on April 26, 2003.
On April 13, 2012, the Plaintiff: (a) sustained an injury during the compulsory mobilization period; (b) died after being killed due to a testamentary gift; and (c) the Special Act on the Investigation into Force into Force Forced Mobilization and Support for Victims, etc. of Foreign Forced Mobilization (hereinafter “The Victim Support Act”) on April 13, 2012.
() The Defendant filed an application for the payment of consolation money pursuant to the foregoing. On October 4, 2013, the Defendant rendered a disposition dismissing the Plaintiff’s above application on the ground that “The fact that the deceased was forced to be mobilized as a person of labor under the Japanese colonial rule from 1944 to 1945 was recognized as having returned to the Republic of Korea, but there is no ground to recognize the fact that the deceased was damaged by injury during the compulsory mobilization period (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
The Plaintiff’s assertion as to the legitimacy of the instant disposition and the overall purport of the pleading as to the facts without dispute (based on recognition), Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 14 through 16, and Eul evidence Nos. 14 through 16, and the overall purport of the argument was legitimate. The Plaintiff’s assertion as to the legitimacy of the instant disposition was mobilized to Japan by Japanese labor force from 1944 to 1945. At the time of compulsory mobilization, one eye due to severe sacity, etc., was the real name and seven saves, and the right kne was cut, and returned to the state where the right was cut. After returning, the above disability was serious, and the remaining one eye was close to the real name of the victim. Accordingly, the instant disposition was unlawful because the Plaintiff, a bereaved family member of the Deceased, constitutes a person eligible for consolation benefits under the Victim Support Act, and thus, it was unlawful.