1. The plaintiff (appointed)'s claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff (appointed party).

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff filed an application for the outstanding amount subsidy under Article 5 of the Special Act on the Investigation into Force Force Forced Mobilization and Support for Victims, etc. of Foreign Force Mobilization (hereinafter “the Committee”), claiming that the deceased H (the mother of the Plaintiff is the deceased I), who was the first denial of father G, was forced to be mobilized to work at a work site in China located in the Republic of China on a daily basis around 1940, and filed an application for the Support Committee for the Investigation into Damage from Forced Mobilization and the Mobilization Victims, etc. of Overseas Forced Mobilization (hereinafter “the Committee”), but the Committee dismissed the application on January 22, 2015 on the ground that “the document related to the outstanding amount to the deceased H is not verified.”

Therefore, the Plaintiff filed an application for reexamination, but the instant committee dismissed the application for reexamination on July 24, 2015 on the ground that “No new fact exists that could reverse the said rejection decision, such as where there is no additional evidence on the outstanding amount.”

B. The Plaintiff filed an application with the instant commission for payment of consolation money under Article 5 subparag. 2 of the Compulsory Mobilization Investigation Act by asserting that the deceased H was forced to be mobilized to China as above and suffered from injury, but the instant commission rejected the application on October 16, 2015 on the ground that “the Plaintiff is deemed not a bereaved family member under Article 3 of the Compulsory Mobilization Investigation Act.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9 (including the relevant branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff and the Appointed J (hereinafter “Appointed”) filed the instant lawsuit with the purport of the claim that “the Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff and the Appointed KRW 1 won to the Plaintiff,” on May 18, 2015, on the ground that: (a) the Plaintiff and the Appointed J (hereinafter “Appointed”) were forced from May 18, 2015 to August 194 to engage in labor under the Japanese colonial rule; and (b) the Plaintiff’s statement of the purport of the claim as of September 25, 2015.