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 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 large-party dispute pursuant to Article 26 of the Special Act on the Investigation into Force by Forced Mobilization and Support for Victims of Mobilization by Foreign Forced Mobilization (hereinafter “Compulsory Mobilization Act”).

C. On June 17, 2014, the Plaintiff asserted that B constituted “victim” under Article 2 subparag. 5 of the Compulsory Mobilization Investigation Act, and applied for the payment of the outstanding amount under Article 5 of the same Act.

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 a worker to live in a work site located in the southyang-gun from February 1943 to December 12, 1943 and returned to the Republic of Korea, but it is recognized that the document related to the outstanding amount is not identified, and thus does not constitute a victim of the outstanding amount under Article 2 of the Compulsory Mobilization Investigation Act,” the commission did not dismiss the Plaintiff’s application pursuant to Article 24 subparag. 1 of the Compulsory Mobilization Investigation Act (where it is evident that the content of the report or application is not true or there is no objective evidence to recognize that it is true) and dismissed by applying Article 22 of the Compulsory Mobilization Investigation

was held.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) e.

On May 7, 2015, the Plaintiff 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 December 31, 2015, the term of the commission expired, the Defendant succeeded to the commission’s affairs pursuant to Article 19(4) of the Compulsory Mobilization Investigation Act.

【Ground of recognition” has no dispute, Gap's 1 through 4, and Eul's 1, 2, 6, 7, and 10, respectively, and oral arguments.