1. The Defendant’s disposition to dismiss the payment of consolation benefits, etc. issued to the Plaintiff on October 16, 2014 is revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On March 29, 2014, the Plaintiff asserted that it constitutes a bereaved family member as a victim of compulsory mobilization abroad, and filed an application for consolation money, etc. with the support committee for victims, etc. of forced mobilization abroad (hereinafter “the Committee”).

B. On October 16, 2014, the instant commission rendered a decision to dismiss the payment of consolation money, etc. pursuant to Article 22 of the same Act on the ground that the Plaintiff does not constitute a bereaved family member under Article 3 of the Special Act on the Investigation into Forced Mobilization and Support for Victims, etc. of Foreign Mobilization (hereinafter “Compulsory Mobilization Investigation Act”) on the ground that “the relationship between the victim B and his bereaved family member is not confirmed.”

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 11, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. To make entries in the attached statutes concerned;

3. Examining whether the instant disposition is lawful or not, together with the overall purport of the pleadings, as seen in the evidence No. 5, the Plaintiff may recognize the fact that he/she was born between B and B, a victim of overseas compulsory mobilization.

The plaintiff is a child of B and constitutes a bereaved family member under Article 3 of the Compulsory Mobilization Investigation Act.

The instant disposition issued on a different premise is unlawful.

4. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is justified and accepted.