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 August 26, 1942, the Plaintiff was forced to be mobilized to the Sibane distribution department located in the Namyang-do Truck Island as a civilian military employee, and returned to the Republic of Korea on May 21, 1946.

B. On October 16, 2006, the Special Act on the Investigation into the Truth of Force Forced Mobilization Damage by Forced Mobilization during the 19th National Defense Dispute and the Support Committee for Victims, etc. of Forced Mobilization by Forced Mobilization (hereinafter “Compulsory Mobilization Investigation Committee”) [the Special Act on the Investigation into Forced Mobilization Damage by Forced Mobilization during the 10143 of March 22, 2010] (hereinafter “Compulsory Mobilization Investigation Act”) provides for the Plaintiff to investigate the actual status of forced mobilization damage by Forced Mobilization under the Japanese colonial Rule.

(A) Pursuant to Article 6 of the Addenda, the term “patient subject to compulsory mobilization abroad” was determined as “a patient subject to compulsory mobilization abroad.”

C. On June 24, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for the payment of consolation money under Article 4 of the Compulsory Mobilization Investigation Act with the compulsory mobilization Investigation Committee pursuant to Article 27 of the same Act. On July 24, 2015, the compulsory mobilization Investigation Committee dismissed the application for consolation money on the ground that the Plaintiff’s forced mobilization of the Plaintiff to a civilian military employee belonging to the Japanese Shiba in the military service division under the Japanese colonial rule, but there is no ground to prove that the Plaintiff was an injury or disease during the compulsory mobilization period or during the process of returning to the Republic of Korea.”

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.

On August 18, 2015, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and applied for reexamination to the Compulsory Mobilization Investigation Committee on August 16, 2015, but the said application was dismissed on October 16, 2015.

E. On December 31, 2015, the Defendant succeeded to affairs under its jurisdiction pursuant to Article 19(4) of the Compulsory Mobilization Investigation Act as the period of existence of the forced mobilization investigation committee expires.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 4 through 8, and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff is on a bridge against the strike of bombomb while forced mobilization and serving as civilian personnel in the military service.