(영문) 서울행정법원 2016.3.24. 선고 2015구합12519 판결

On October 16, 2015, the Committee to Support the Mobilization Damage Investigation and Mobilization Victims, etc. (hereinafter referred to as the "Committee of this case") shall revoke the decision to dismiss the payment of consolation money, etc. made against the plaintiff on October 16, 2015.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff’s father, father B (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”), forced mobilization by Japanese colonial rule, from March 23, 1941 to February 14, 1943, and worked as a worker in the Kaz mine located in the Japanese City from March 23, 1941 to February 14, 1943, and returned to the Republic of Korea on October 19, 1964.

B. On June 27, 2014, the Plaintiff applied for the grant of the outstanding amount under Article 5 of the Compulsory Mobilization Investigation Act to the instant committee established pursuant to Article 8 of the Special Act on the Investigation into Force into Force Forced Mobilization and Support for Victims of Mobilizationd Overseas (hereinafter “Compulsory Mobilization Investigation Act”).

C. On October 16, 2015, the instant commission rendered a decision to select the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 22 of the Compulsory Mobilization Investigation Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that “the Plaintiff was forced to be mobilized by the deceased on a daily basis and forced to live as a worker and returned to the Plaintiff.” However, it is recognized that the documents related to the outstanding amount are not verified, and thus, the Deceased did not constitute a victim of the outstanding amount as stipulated in Article 2 of the Compulsory Mobilization Investigation Act.

D. Meanwhile, on December 31, 2015, pursuant to the proviso of Article 19(1) of the Compulsory Mobilization Investigation Act, the Defendant succeeded to the affairs under the jurisdiction of the said commission upon the expiration of the term of existence of the instant commission.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Deceased, who was forced to be mobilized by Japanese colonial rule, was forced to perform harsh labor in the coal mine located in Japan, but was forced to receive any wage. The Plaintiff was transferred from the deceased and the deceased who returned to the Republic of Korea after the piracy, and thus, the Deceased constitutes an outstanding amount under Article 2 subparag. 5 of the Act. Accordingly, the instant disposition made on a different premise is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

According to Article 2 subparag. 5 and Article 5 of the Compulsory Mobilization Investigation Act, the term "amount of the outstanding amount" refers to the amount of the wages, various allowances, solatium, or installments (hereinafter referred to as "amount of the outstanding amount") that could have been paid to a Japanese company, etc. in return for the forced mobilization of a worker, etc. to a foreign country from April 1, 1938 to August 15, 1945. Article 5(1) of the Compulsory Mobilization Investigation Act provides that the amount of the outstanding amount that a victim of the outstanding amount could have been paid to a Japanese company, etc. from April 1, 1938 to a Japanese company, etc. shall be 2,000 won in Korean currency at the time of the compulsory mobilization Investigation Act.

In addition, Article 27(1) of the Compulsory Mobilization Investigation Act and Article 24(1)5 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provide that a person who intends to receive the outstanding amount shall submit evidentiary materials verifying that he/she is a victim of the outstanding amount pursuant to Article 27(1) of the same Act and Article 24(1)5 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act. Even if the deceased was determined as a "victim" under Article 2 subparag. 2 of the Compulsory Mobilization Investigation Act, in order for the Plaintiff, a bereaved family member of the deceased, to receive the outstanding amount, the deceased must prove that he/she failed to receive the outstanding amount after he

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the deceased was unable to receive the outstanding amount as above.

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, the disposition of this case that the deceased did not correspond to the outstanding amount under Article 2 subparag. 5 of the Compulsory Mobilization Investigation Act is legitimate, and the plaintiff's assertion against this is without merit.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.