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 June 10, 1945, the deceased B (Cre, hereinafter “the deceased”) was forced to be mobilized as a civilian military employee under the Japanese colonial rule, and died from the North part of the Mean Island of the Philippines on June 10, 194.

B. On May 17, 2005, the Plaintiff reported on forced mobilization of the deceased under the Japanese colonial Rule (amended by Act No. 8435, May 17, 2007; hereinafter “former Act”) pursuant to Article 12 of the former Special Act on the Inspection, etc. of the Truth of Forced Mobilization Damage under the Japanese colonial Rule (amended by Act No. 8435, May 17, 2007; hereinafter “former Act”) and Article 17 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, pursuant to Article 12 of the former Act and Article 17 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the Plaintiff reported on forced mobilization of the deceased under the Japanese colonial Rule (hereinafter “former Committee”). On August 31, 2006, the former Committee decided the deceased as “victim of forced mobilization of Japanese colonial Rule” and the Plaintiff as “bereaved’s survivors” of the deceased.

C. On March 22, 2010, the Defendant succeeded to the former Committee pursuant to Articles 3 and 6 of the Addenda of the Special Act on the Support for Compulsory Mobilization in Japan and the Victims of Force Mobilization in Foreign Countries (hereinafter “New Act”).

On April 21, 2014, the Plaintiff asserted that he was the deceased’s child and applied for the payment of consolation money under Article 4 of the New Act to the Defendant. On February 26, 2015, the Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s above application on the ground that “The deceased was mobilized on a daily basis, and forced a civilian military employee to work in the facility department 103 from the date of the insular era and forced a civilian military employee’s life in the facility department 103, and died on June 10, 1945, it is recognized that the Plaintiff cannot be deemed as a person after the death of the deceased, and thus does not constitute a bereaved family member under Article 3 of the Force Mobilization Investigation

(hereinafter "Disposition in this case"). 【No dispute exists, entry in Gap's Evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, and Eul's Evidence Nos. 1 through 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. On May 3, 1951, the deceased, who is the part of the plaintiff's argument, was separated from the plaintiff's father's family register on May 3, 1951, while the deceased was missing, and the deceased's latter death.