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, from March 23, 1941 to February 14, 1943, and worked as a worker in the Kaz mine of Japanese Mining Corporation located in the Japanese Simo City from March 23, 1941 to February 14, 194, and returned to the Republic of Korea on October 19, 1964.

B. On June 27, 2014, the Plaintiff applied for the grant of the outstanding amount under Article 5 of the Compulsory Mobilization Investigation Act to the instant committee established pursuant to Article 8 of the Special Act on the Investigation into Force into Force Forced Mobilization and Support for Victims of Mobilizationd Overseas (hereinafter “Compulsory Mobilization Investigation Act”).

C. On October 16, 2015, the instant commission rendered a decision to dismiss the Plaintiff’s application pursuant to Article 22 of the Compulsory Mobilization Investigation Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that “The deceased’s forced mobilization by day and forced him to live as a worker and forced him/her to return to his/her life” is acknowledged, but the documents pertaining to the outstanding amount are not verified, and thus the deceased does not constitute a victim of the outstanding amount as prescribed in Article 2 of the Compulsory Mobilization Investigation Act.”

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, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was mobilized by Japanese colonial rule and forced to work harshly in the coal mine located in Japan, but the Plaintiff did not receive any wage, and the Plaintiff was transferred from the deceased and the deceased’s seat who returned to the Republic of Korea after explaining that fact, and thus, the deceased constitutes an outstanding amount under Article 2 subparag. 5 of the Act.

Therefore, the instant disposition made on a different premise is unlawful.

(b) The details of the relevant statutes are as shown in the attached statutes.

(c) judgment;