2015Guhap10926 Revocation of dismissal of application for payment of consolation money, etc.

A

The Minister of Government Administration

March 18, 2016

April 8, 2016

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

On February 26, 2015, the Committee for the Investigation of Damage from Forced Mobilization and Support for Victims of Mobilization by Foreign Force Mobilization (hereinafter referred to as the "Committee") shall revoke the disposition of rejection of payment of consolation money, etc. made against the plaintiff on February 26, 2015.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff’s father B was forced to be mobilized as an employee at the workplace located in Yangyang-do by Japan from February 1943 to December 1943, and died after he returned.

B. On September 6, 2010, the commission decided B as a victim of compulsory mobilization during the period of a dispute pursuant to Article 26 of the Special Act on the Investigation into Force Forced Mobilization and Support for Victims of Mobilization of Foreign Forced Mobilization (hereinafter “Compulsory Mobilization Act”).

C. On June 17, 2014, the Plaintiff asserted that B constituted “victims of outstanding amounts” as stipulated in Article 2 and Article 5 of the Compulsory Mobilization Investigation Act, and applied for the payment of the outstanding amounts under Article 5 of the same Act.

D. However, on February 26, 2015, the commission rejected the Plaintiff’s application on the ground that “B” was mobilized by Japanese colonial rule and forced to work as a worker at a work site of the U.S. Gun located in Southyang-gun from February 2, 1943 to December 12, 1943 and returned to the Plaintiff. However, on the ground that the documents related to the outstanding amount are not identified, and thus, it does not constitute a victim of the outstanding amount under Article 2 of the Compulsory Mobilization Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

E. On May 7, 2015, the Plaintiff appealed and filed an application for review with the commission pursuant to Article 29(5) of the Compulsory Mobilization Investigation Act, but the commission dismissed the application for review on June 25, 2015 pursuant to Article 24 of the Compulsory Mobilization Investigation Act.

F. On the expiration of the term of the commission on January 12, 2015, the defendant succeeded to the jurisdiction of the commission in accordance with Article 19(4) of the Compulsory Mobilization Investigation Act.

【Ground of recognition】 In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 6, 7, and 10, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The instant disposition rejecting the application for the grant of the outstanding amount on the ground that B cannot be deemed as a victim of the outstanding amount due to lack of data related to the outstanding amount that the Plaintiff could not hold at present even though the commission decided B as a victim of the forced mobilization due to the fact that B was damaged by compulsory mobilization, is unlawful, and thus, seek its revocation.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

Article 2 subparag. 5 of the Compulsory Mobilization Investigation Act provides that "victim of the outstanding amount" refers to a person who was unable to receive wages, various allowances, solatiums, or relief fees (hereinafter referred to as "unpaid amount") that could have been paid to a Japanese company, etc. in return for the provision of labor, etc. by forced mobilization abroad from April 1, 1938 to August 15, 1945, and Article 5(1) of the Compulsory Mobilization Investigation Act provides that the State shall pay the outstanding amount that a victim of the outstanding amount or his/her bereaved family could have been paid to a Japanese company, etc. by converting the amount of the outstanding amount into KRW 2,000 in the currency of the Republic of Korea into the currency of the Republic of Korea at the time of Japan.

According to the above legislation, even if a soldier, etc. were forced to be mobilized overseas and provided labor, it is not immediately recognized as a victim of outstanding amount under Article 2 subparag. 5 of the Compulsory Mobilization Investigation Act, but can only be recognized as a victim of outstanding amount under Article 2 subparag. 5 of the Compulsory Mobilization Investigation Act only if it is proved that he/she failed to receive the outstanding amount that could have been paid in return for the provision of labor, etc. based on evidence such as deposit-related documents and specifications. The burden of proof should be viewed as the applicant for the payment of the outstanding amount.

As seen earlier, it is difficult to recognize B as a victim of the outstanding amount under Article 2 subparag. 5 of the Compulsory Mobilization Investigation Act, inasmuch as there is no evidence to prove that B had not received the payment of the 7. labor service provided by Japan and Japanese companies, etc., and thus, B cannot be deemed as a victim of the outstanding amount under Article 2 subparag. 5 of the forced Mobilization Investigation Act.

Therefore, it cannot be deemed that there is no illegality in the disposition of this case.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is without merit and is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

The judges of the presiding judge;

Support for Judges

Judges Kim Jae-nam

1) The commission did not dismiss under Article 24 subparag. 1 of the Compulsory Mobilization Investigation Act (where it is evident that the content of a report or application is not true or there is no objective evidence that it is true) and dismissed by applying Article 22 of the Compulsory Mobilization Investigation Act.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.