Plaintiff

The Support Committee for Investigation of Damage from Force Mobilization during the Time of the Counter-Japan and Victims, etc. of Force Mobilization;

July 21, 201

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2010Guhap38899 Decided November 26, 2010

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s rejection decision of payment of consolation money, etc. against the Plaintiff on August 27, 2010 shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for the court's explanation on this case is that "no data exists" in the third 10th 10th 3th 1 of the judgment of the court of first instance is "no data exists, and there is no data to be deemed that the plaintiff is included in the scope of bereaved family members entitled to consolation benefits." Further, "the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes added" in the annexed "related Acts and subordinate statutes" of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be added to "the degree of the deceased's injury" in the fifth 6th 5th 6th 6th 6th 5th 9 "the degree of the deceased's injury and the extent of bereaved family members", and the following matters shall be added to "the extent of the deceased's injury and the extent of bereaved family members" in the fifth 9th 6th 9th 25th 6th 2010, and therefore, it shall be cited as the reasons for the judgment of the court of first , except for the addition of Act No. 10143 (i) of March 2222

【Additional Matters】

Article 2 subparag. 3 (a) of the Special Act provides that “A person who was mobilized abroad by force between April 1, 1938 and August 15, 1945 as a victim of forced mobilization of the deceased,” and Article 2 subparag. 3 (a) of the same Act provides that “The victim of forced mobilization of the deceased shall be subject to consolation benefits from April 1, 1938 to August 15, 194, who was killed or missing, or who was affected by an injury prescribed by Presidential Decree during or during the period of mobilization abroad, and who was determined as a victim of forced mobilization abroad pursuant to subparagraph 6 of Article 8,” and Article 2 subparag. 3 (a) of the Enforcement Decree of the Special Act provides that “an injury” means an injury that may have been caused permanent loss or reduction of labor force and a disease for which disability grade of the deceased under Article 7 (1) 4 is recognized as a victim of forced mobilization of the deceased at the expense of 1 to 30% of the total number of victims of labor force.”

In addition, according to Article 3 (1) and (2) of the Special Act, the scope of bereaved family members entitled to consolation benefits shall be the spouse and children (order 1), parents (order 2), grandchildren (order 3), brothers and sisters (order 4), among the deceased's relatives who died or were missing. However, in light of the purport of the argument in subparagraph 9, where two or more persons are in the same order of priority, they share the right to receive consolation benefits with the same share. In full view of the purport of the argument in subparagraph 9, the plaintiff was born on July 18, 1924, his father and father were born, and his mother was raising his awareness, and only the plaintiff was relieved to South Korea at the time of the war on June 25, 200, the plaintiff was stated as the deceased's deceased's deceased's deceased's deceased's deceased family member's deceased status at around June 25, 203, and the deceased's deceased's deceased's deceased non-party 4 and the deceased's deceased's deceased's non-party 98.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion that the disposition of this case is legitimate as a result of the lack of data on the degree of injury of the deceased and the scope of bereaved family members.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and the judgment of the court of first instance is justified on the grounds of its conclusion, so the defendant's appeal is dismissed and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment of Related Acts and Subordinate Statutes]

Judges Cho Jong-ho (Presiding Judge)