1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff’s father, father B (hereinafter “the deceased”), forced mobilization by Japanese colonial rule, and served as civilian personnel in the military service at a Buddhist place located in the school territory of Japan from December 1, 194 to November 1, 1945, and died after returning to the Republic of Korea around the time of the disaster.

B. On April 30, 2009, the committee for ascertaining the truth of forced mobilization damage, which is the telegraph of the instant committee, determined the deceased as “victim” under Article 2 subparag. 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 “the Fact-Finding Act”).

C. On June 24, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application with the instant committee established pursuant to Article 8 of the Special Act on Assistance to the Force Mobilization Investigation and Military Force Mobilization Victims, etc. (hereinafter “Compulsory Mobilization Investigation Act”) for the payment of the outstanding amount under Article 5 of the Compulsory Mobilization Investigation Act.

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 by a civilian military employee on a daily basis and forced him/her to live; (b) but it was decided to dismiss the Plaintiff’s application pursuant to Article 22 of the Compulsory Mobilization Investigation Act on the ground that the deceased did not constitute a victim of outstanding amounts as prescribed in Article 2 of the Compulsory Mobilization Investigation Act because the documents related to outstanding amounts 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 whole pleadings.