2016Guhap7019 Decision to dismiss an application for payment of consolation money, etc.

A

The Minister of Government Administration

December 7, 2016

February 10, 2017

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

On July 22, 2016, the Committee for Investigation of Damage from Forced Mobilization during the Time of the World War and for Support of Victims, etc. of Mobilization by Foreign Force Mobilization (hereinafter referred to as the "Committee") shall revoke the decision to dismiss the application for consolation benefits made against the plaintiff on July 22, 20

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The deceased B(hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) died on June 2, 1980.

B. On March 22, 2005, the Deceased C (hereinafter referred to as the “D”) reported the damage to the effect that the Deceased was mobilized by force on the part of the Working Committee for the Inspection of the Truth of Forced Mobilization Damage under the Japanese colonial Rule of Incheon Metropolitan City (hereinafter referred to as the “Working Committee for Inspection of the Truth”) on the part of the Deceased's life by force on the part of North Korean Dos coal mine around 1940 and forced his/her labor life.

C. On March 31, 2011, the commission decided on March 31, 201, pursuant to Article 26 of the Special Act on Assistance to the Force Mobilization Investigation and Mobilization Victims, etc. (hereinafter “Compulsory Mobilization Investigation Act”), the deceased constituted a victim of forced mobilization during the period of a war.

D. On June 10, 2014, the deceased’s children, E, D, F, G, and the Plaintiff applied for the payment of injury injury consolation benefits to the commission.

E. The commission dismissed the application for the payment of consolation benefits on July 24, 2015 on the ground that “the deceased was forced to be mobilized from around 1940 to August 24, 1945 as a worker in Japan under the Japanese colonial rule, but there is no ground to recognize the fact of suffering from injury or disease during the compulsory mobilization period or in the process of returning to Korea.”

F. Although Plaintiff, E, F, and G filed an application for reexamination with the Committee on the said dismissal ruling, the Committee rejected the application for reexamination on July 22, 2016, on the ground that there is no reason to modify the said dismissal ruling after conducting telephone investigation, etc. with respect to Plaintiff D, E, and Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

G. On December 31, 2015, the Defendant succeeded to affairs under its jurisdiction pursuant to Article 19(4) of the Compulsory Mobilization Investigation Act as the period of existence of the commission expires.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 1 to 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the deceased were mobilized by Japanese colonial rule and forced mobilization, and became an obstacle due to the injury on the bridge during his work in the middle of the North Sea of Japan, the commission should have decided to pay consolation money, but the disposition of this case which decided not to pay consolation money based on the statement that the deceased did not take the bridge in Japan for the purpose of hindering the plaintiff et al. from receiving consolation money.

B. Relevant statutes

Article 4 (Consolation Money) of the Special Act on Assistance to Investigation into Force Forced Mobilization during the Time of the Counter-Japanese War and Victims of Overseas Mobilization; etc.

The State shall pay consolation money to victims of mobilization by overseas force or their bereaved family members as follows:

2. Where a person suffers from a disability due to forced mobilization abroad, the amount prescribed by Presidential Decree based on the degree of disability not exceeding 20 million won per victim of the mobilization by overseas force.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) On July 7, 2015, D stated to the effect that, during the telephone investigation process, “the deceased was injured in Japan,” without properly aware of whether he/she was injured in Japan, and that, even though he/she may know how he/she was injured in Japan, he/she is not absolute in Japan.”

2) On August 2015, the Plaintiff submitted to the Committee a confirmation document jointly signed by I, J, and K around August 2015, to the effect that, at the time of the Deceased’s work in the mine of Japan, the Deceased was unable to receive proper treatment and was disabled.

3) On August 12, 2015, D submitted a written statement to the effect that “No one can easily gather anywhere the deceased will have a bridge.”

4) D stated that “In the course of telephone investigation, it was difficult for the deceased to find out how much she had a her bridge from the deceased, but there was no fact about how she had a her bridge in the process of telephone investigation.”

5) On March 18, 2016, the Plaintiff made a statement to the effect that, in the process of telephone investigation, the part of the 'bucks' among the 'bucks that are not clear enough, but are the same as the 'bucks down below the upper half of the 'bucks'.

6) On April 12, 2016, E submitted a written application to the Committee to the effect that “the deceased was mobilized under the Japanese colonial rule and was forced to work in a light, and that he suffered from injury and was unable to receive treatment properly. As d, d was unable to occupy as a mixed person, E submitted a written statement to the effect that “the rest of the punishment system was reversed for the purpose of preventing the payment of consolation benefits,” and that “the payment of consolation benefits was changed.”

7) Around July 2015, L, who resided in the village such as the Deceased, prepared a false certificate of guarantee to the effect that "a letter of guarantee cancellation is cancelled because it is found that L, who had been living in the village such as the Deceased, was drafted as of March 22, 2005 as of March 22, 2005."

8) Around August 12, 2015, I, residing in the village, such as the Deceased, prepared a letter of guarantee against the Committee on his/her behalf on May 1, 2009, “the letter of risk verification and correction and cancellation of letter of risk guarantee” with the purport that, although he/she was aware of the fact that M/N was in Japan, the deceased’s form of punishment, but he/she did not know about the deceased, and that, as he/she was aware of where the deceased was injured on a bridge, he/she would at all be cancelled.

9) Around March 24, 2015, a letter of credit guarantee, which was residing in a village such as the Deceased, was prepared to the effect that the content of the letter of credit guarantee as of March 22, 2005, “as of March 22, 2005, the letter of credit guarantee was prepared to the effect that the letter of credit guarantee was “a correction of the letter of credit guarantee received on the old day because it is well known that the deceased had a bridge in any place.”

10) On July 6, 2015, P residing in the village, such as the Deceased, prepared a letter of guarantee, “A letter of guarantee drawn up in February 28, 2007,” to the effect that, “A letter of guarantee,” which was drawn up in February 28, 2007, was well drawn up against the Deceased, the Deceased is deemed to have been in Korea, and that the Deceased is aware that the said letter of guarantee is in Korea.”

【Reasons for Recognition】 Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 2, Eul evidence Nos. 6 through 10 (including branch numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

In light of the following circumstances revealed by the above facts, it is not sufficient to recognize that the records of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 are sufficient to recognize that the deceased forced mobilization by Japanese colonial system and forced labor workers to live in the middle of his/her own on the bridge during his/her death in the North Sea of North Korea. The plaintiff's assertion is without merit, since there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

1) At first, D alleged that the deceased was cut off from the bridge during the process of forced mobilization in North Korea, and filed a report on damage with the letter of personal guarantee by those residing in the same village. However, D, as the bereaved family members of D, did not know of the deceased’s injury, reversed his/her statement to the effect that the content stated in the letter of personal guarantee was not true. D, which constitutes the deceased’s bereaved family members, did not know of the deceased’s injury, and reversed his/her statement.

2) As a result, as to whether the deceased was injured by a bridge in the mine of North Sea in Japan, between those who resided in the village, such as the deceased, and their children, what are the statements.

3) In relation to the injury part of the deceased, the plaintiff asserts that the deceased's children and neighbors are ‘bucks', ‘Bucks', ‘I, J, K' the deceased's 's 's 's sublime', ‘E', and ‘D' 'the cutting of the bridge.'

4) There is no objective data from other places and timing where the deceased was injured on the bridge, the degree of the disability on the bridge that the deceased was on the bridge, etc.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

The judges of the presiding judge;

Support for Judges

Judges Kim Jae-nam