(영문) 서울행정법원 2016.3.24. 선고 2016구합186 판결

On June 25, 2015, the Committee to Support the Mobilization Damage Investigation and Mobilization Victims, etc. (hereinafter referred to as the "Committee of this case") made against the plaintiff on June 25, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as " October 16, 2015" appears to be a clerical error in the statement in the purport of the claim).

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff’s father’s father B (hereinafter “the deceased”) forced mobilization by Japanese colonial rule, and works as a civilian military employee at a Buddhist place located in the territory of Japan from December 194 to November 1945.

Around the time of a disaster, he returned to the Republic of Korea and died.

B. On April 30, 2009, the committee for ascertaining the truth of forced mobilization damage, which is the telegraph of the instant committee, decided the deceased as the "victim under Article 2 subparagraph 2 of the Special Act on Finding the Truth of Force Mobilization Damage under the former Japanese colonial Rule (amended by Act No. 10143, Mar. 22, 2010; hereinafter referred to as the "Act") after confirming the above facts.

C. On June 24, 2014, the Plaintiff applied for the grant of the outstanding amount under Article 5 of the Compulsory Mobilization Investigation Act (hereinafter “Compulsory Mobilization Investigation Act”) to the instant commission established pursuant to Article 8 of the Special Act on the Investigation into Force Forced Mobilization and Support for Victims of Mobilization of Foreign Forced Mobilization, etc. (hereinafter “Compulsory Mobilization Investigation Act”).

D. On June 25, 2015, the instant commission: (a) was deemed to have returned to the Plaintiff while forced a civilian military employee to be mobilized under the Japanese colonial rule and forced the Plaintiff to live; (b) however, it decided to dismiss the Plaintiff’s application pursuant to Article 22 of the Compulsory Mobilization Investigation Act on the ground that the deceased does not constitute an outstanding amount under Article 2 of the Compulsory Mobilization Investigation Act because the documents related to the outstanding amount are not verified (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

E. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed an application for review on the instant disposition on August 4, 2015, but the instant commission dismissed the said review on October 16, 2015 pursuant to Article 24 of the Compulsory Mobilization Investigation Act.

F. 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, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Deceased, who was mobilized by Japanese colonial rule, was forced to work as a civilian military employee in Japan, but was forced to work as a civilian military employee in Japan, but the Plaintiff did not receive any wage, and the Plaintiff was transferred from CO, the mother of the Deceased and the Deceased’s wife who returned to Korea, 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 same shall apply to the entry of the destroyed land-related statutes.

C. Determination

According to Article 2 subparag. 5 and Article 5 of the Compulsory Mobilization Investigation Act, the term "amount of subsidies for outstanding amounts" means the amount of wages, various allowances, solatiums, or assistance fees, etc. (hereinafter referred to as "amount of outstanding amounts") that could have been paid to Japanese companies, etc. in return for forced mobilization abroad from April 1, 1938 to August 15, 1945. Article 5(1) of the Compulsory Mobilization Investigation Act provides that the amount of outstanding amounts that a victim of outstanding amounts could have been paid from Japanese companies, etc. shall be converted into the amount of KRW 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 data verifying that he/she is a victim of the outstanding amount under 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 Fact-Finding Inspection Act or Article 2 subparag. 2 of the Compulsory Mobilization Investigation Act, the Plaintiff, a bereaved family member of the deceased, was unable to receive the outstanding amount after he/she was mobilized overseas as a worker

that fact shall be proved.

As shown in the plaintiff's assertion, Gap evidence No. 2 is sufficient to recognize that Eul was unable to receive wages from Japan, etc. at the time of compulsory mobilization of the deceased, unless there is any objective evidence to support this, unless there is any objective evidence to support this, the above evidence alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the deceased failed to receive the outstanding amount, and there is no other evidence to support this.

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.