(영문) 서울행정법원 2017.9.7. 선고 2016구합2731 판결

On June 25, 2015, the defendant confirmed that the original decision on the application for payment of consolation benefits against the plaintiff is null and void.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 14, 2009, the Committee for the Inspection of Damage from Force Mobilization and Support of Victims, etc. of Force Mobilization in Japan (hereinafter referred to as "the Committee") confirmed that "the Plaintiff's father B (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") was forced to be mobilized to work places in the U.S. located in Namyang-do, Namyang-do, by Japanese colonial rule that "the Plaintiff was forced to be mobilized to work places in the U.S. located in the Namyang-do, 1942 from October 10, 1942 to 194, 4, and Article 2 subparagraph 2 of the Special Act on the Inspection of Truth of Force Mobilization Damage from Force Mobilization under the former Japanese colonial Rule (amended by Act No. 10143, Mar. 22, 2010; hereinafter referred to as "the Act for the Inspection of Truth").

B. On May 26, 2014, six bereaved family members of the deceased, including the plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff, etc.") applied for the payment of consolation money to the committee of this case established under the Special Act on the Investigation into Force Forced Mobilization and Support for Mobilization Victims, etc. of Overseas Forced Mobilization (hereinafter referred to as "Compulsory Mobilization Investigation Act"). On June 25, 2015, the committee of this case decided on October 25, 2015 that the deceased et al. suffered pictures by forced mobilization of the deceased as labor in the U.S. workplace located in Yangyang-Gun from October 1942 to April 194, Article 2 of the Compulsory Mobilization Investigation Act, Article 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 3 of the same Act provides that the deceased shall be deemed victims of forced mobilization falling under Grade 12 subparag. 13 of the physical disability grade (hereinafter referred to as "the victim of forced mobilization").

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant decision and filed a petition for review on September 3, 2015. However, the instant commission dismissed it on December 17, 2015, and the Plaintiff et al. received the said consolation money equally divided by KRW 500,000.

D. Meanwhile, pursuant to the proviso of Article 19(1) of the Compulsory Mobilization Investigation Act, the term of existence of the instant commission expired on December 31, 2015, and the Defendant succeeded to the affairs under its jurisdiction pursuant to Article 19(4) of the same Act.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 12, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Deceased died on March 1978 after the development of fears, depressions, fluora, heart soldiers, local soldiers, etc., which were caused by forced mobilization, by video and forced mobilization. Since the Deceased’s bereaved family members spent more than KRW 20 million as medical expenses up to the time before the Deceased’s death, the Defendant should pay KRW 20 million to the Plaintiff, etc.

B. Determination on the main defense of this case

The defendant's receipt of consolation money of KRW 3,00,000 by the plaintiff et al. can be deemed to have consented to the decision of this case. Thus, the lawsuit of this case is not appropriate to file a lawsuit of this case. However, it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff expressed his/her intention not to dispute the consent or validity of the decision of this case solely on the ground that the plaintiff et al. received consolation money. Thus, the defendant's defense

C. Whether the decision of this case is legitimate

1) Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

2) Determination

Article 2 subparag. 3 (a) of the Compulsory Mobilization Act provides that the term "victim of the mobilization by overseas" means a person who was mobilized overseas from April 1, 1938 to August 15, 194 under the Japanese colonial rule and died or was missing or was disabled due to an injury prescribed by Presidential Decree during or during the period of compulsory mobilization or during the period of returning to the Republic of Korea, and is determined as a victim of the mobilization by overseas pursuant to subparagraph 6 of Article 8. Article 4 of the same Act provides that the State shall provide that the victims or their bereaved family members of the victims of the mobilization by overseas shall pay consolation benefits of up to 20 million won per victim if they were killed or missing due to compulsory mobilization overseas (subparagraph. 1); the State shall provide that the State shall pay consolation benefits of up to 20 million won per victim [referring to Article 2, Article 3 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Investigation of Forced Mobilization and the amount of physical injury [referring to the amount of physical injury or injury caused to the extent of damage caused by overseas];

According to the above statutes, consolation money under the Compulsory Mobilization Investigation Act is paid according to physical disability grade as prescribed by the Enforcement Decree of the same Act in cases where the deceased and his/her bereaved family members were mobilized by force under the Japanese colonial rule. Accordingly, the amount of expenditure for treatment of the deceased and their bereaved family members cannot affect the determination of consolation money. Furthermore, as alleged by the plaintiff, there is no evidence to recognize that the deceased had died due to the development of liver cancer, such as fears, depressions, fluences, fluences, hearts, local soldiers, etc. caused by force mobilization, and there is no other reason to believe that there is any illegality in the decision of this case. Therefore, the decision

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.