1. The Defendant’s decision to dismiss the payment of consolation money, etc. against the Plaintiff on June 27, 2013 is revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff’s father, the father of the Plaintiff (CB, hereinafter “the deceased”), returned from around 1940 to August 15, 194, to Japan by Japanese labor force, and died on February 21, 1978.

B. On June 21, 2005, the Plaintiff submitted a report of damage pursuant to Article 12 of the former Special Act on Finding the Truth of Forced Mobilization Damage under the Japanese colonial Rule (amended by Act No. 10143, Mar. 22, 2010) and the Defendant submitted the report.

After ascertaining the facts under paragraph (1), on February 8, 201, the deceased was decided as "victim of forced mobilization during the period of forced mobilization" pursuant to Article 26 of the former Special Act on Assistance to the Forced Mobilization of Man-Japanese War and the Victims of Overseas Force Mobilization (amended by Act No. 12132, Dec. 30, 2013; hereinafter "victim Support Act") and Article 3 of the Addenda (No. 10143, Mar. 22, 2010). (C) On April 20, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an application for consolation benefits with the Defendant on the ground that "the deceased sustained from the right leg cutting down during the period of forced mobilization and the right neck cutting down," but the Defendant was found to have dismissed the Plaintiff's application for forced mobilization of the deceased from June 27, 2013 to August 15, 2015, on the ground that "the deceased had no reason to recognize the Plaintiff's forced mobilization of labor."

D. On August 1, 2012, the Plaintiff appealed and filed an application for reexamination with the Defendant on or around August 1, 2012, but the Defendant did not make a decision on the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination not later than the closing date of the pleadings in the instant case. [Grounds for recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 4 (including each number; hereinafter the

written evidence Nos. 1, 8, 11, 12, and 13, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is a person who works in the Republic of Korea on a Japanese basis.