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 January 17, 2014, the Plaintiff asserted that B (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) mobilized into the Russia Marcarf farm in around 1939 and died during the compulsory mobilization period. On January 17, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application with the commission for the payment of consolation money under Article 4 of the Special Act on the Investigation into Force into Force Force Forced Mobilization during the Time Limit and the Support for Victims of Mobilization of Overseas Forced Mobilization, etc. (hereinafter “Compulsory Mobilization Investigation Act”), but the commission rejected the Plaintiff’s application on October 16, 2015 on the ground that “the deceased is not a victim of forced mobilization in a foreign country because it is impossible to confirm the damage and death or injury caused by the forced mobilization in a foreign country” under Article 2 of the Compulsory Mobilization Investigation Act.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). (b)

On November 4, 2015, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an application for reexamination with the commission on November 4, 2015, but the commission dismissed the said application on the ground that no new fact exists to reverse the instant disposition on December 17, 2015.

C. On December 31, 2015, the Defendant succeeded to the affairs under the jurisdiction of the commission upon the expiration of the term of the commission.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 6 and 9 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. At the time of birth, the Plaintiff’s assertion was born at CY Si, and the name was registered in D as “D” and the name was changed to B.

In 1939, the deceased forced mobilization to Russia as a part of Russia in 1939 and forced labor as a penalty, etc.

In 1964, death occurred.

Therefore, the disposition of this case which dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for consolation money even though the Plaintiff constitutes the bereaved family of the victim of forced mobilization under the Compulsory Mobilization Investigation Act is unlawful.

B. According to Article 4 of the Compulsory Mobilization Investigation Act, “victims who died or were missing due to forced mobilization abroad” as the subject of consolation money under Article 4 of the said Act refers to April 1938.