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, served as a civilian military employee at a military unit located in the Southern-do Truck Island from August 2, 1942 to February 20, 1946, and returned to Korea, and died in around 1978.

B. On February 12, 2008, the Committee for Inspection of the Truth of Forced Mobilization Damage, which succeeded by the Committee on Japanese colonial Rule (hereinafter “Compulsory Mobilization Act”) on February 12, 2008, the Special Act on the Inspection of the Truth of Forced Mobilization Damage under the former Japanese colonial Rule (hereinafter “Special Act on the Investigation of Forced Mobilization”), etc. on March 22, 2010, concerning the Investigation of Forced Mobilization Damage and Support for Victims, etc. of Overseas Forced Mobilization.

) Pursuant to Article 17 of the Addenda, a decision was made as a victim of forced mobilization under Japanese colonial rule.

C. On June 30, 2014, the Plaintiff applied for the payment of the outstanding amount subsidy to the instant commission established under Article 8 of the Compulsory Mobilization Investigation Act, as stipulated under Article 5 of the Compulsory Mobilization Investigation Act.

On July 24, 2015, the instant commission rendered a decision dismissing the Plaintiff’s application pursuant to Article 22 of the Compulsory Mobilization Act on the ground that “The deceased did not constitute a victim of outstanding amount as stipulated in Article 2 of the Compulsory Mobilization Investigation Act, despite the fact that he/she was forced to be mobilized on a daily basis and forced a civilian military employee to return to his/her life.”

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

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3 through 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The commission of the Plaintiff asserted that the deceased was forced to be mobilized under the Japanese colonial rule and was forced to be forced to be forced to be a civilian military employee in the Southern-do.

At that time, Japan is actually related to wages of the deceased.