(영문) 서울행정법원 2017.1.24. 선고 2016구합2144 판결

On December 17, 2015, the defendant's decision to dismiss the application for payment of consolation money, etc. filed with the plaintiff shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 15, 2014, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff was a son of B (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) who died on November 23, 1959 when she was her on the coal mine that was to be mobilized by forced mobilization during the period of a national defense dispute, and filed an application for consolation money, etc. (hereinafter referred to as “instant application”) with the Support Committee (hereinafter referred to as “Committee”), such as the victims of forced mobilization during the period of a national defense dispute, and the victims of a foreign compulsory mobilization.

B. On July 24, 2015, the commission rendered a decision to dismiss an application for payment of consolation money, etc. pursuant to Article 22 of the Special Act on the Support for the Investigation of Forced Mobilization and the Victims, etc. of Forced Mobilization into Foreign Countries (hereinafter “Compulsory Mobilization Investigation Act”) on the ground that it is not a victim of forced mobilization into overseas under Article 2 of the same Act because it is impossible to determine whether a deceased person caused damage to and died during the compulsory mobilization into foreign countries (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed an application for reexamination with the Committee on April 7, 2015, but was dismissed on December 17, 2015.

D. 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 Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 4, 5, and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The deceased, his father, who was the Plaintiff’s father, was employed in the coal mine that was caused by forced mobilization during the Japanese War, and died at the same time. There were people to guarantee the above fact, and D, who was the child of the father C, of the Plaintiff’s small father, was paid consolation money for the same reason. In light of this, the deceased constitutes a victim of the mobilization by overseas force under Article 2 of the Compulsory Mobilization Investigation Act.

(b) Fact of recognition;

1) On June 23, 2015, the Plaintiff made a statement to the effect that, at the time of the instant request, the Plaintiff was unable to specifically state the deceased’s forced mobilization, and on the supplementary investigation conducted on June 23, 2015, the Plaintiff responded to the question, “I asked that I would have been forced to listen to the question, where I would have been going to 38 years, and what I would have worked.” In the re-investigation process, on November 17, 2015, the Plaintiff responded to the question, “I would have come to her in 1938?” and “I would have been forced to respond to the question, where I would have been sat?”

2) 이 사건 신청 당시의 인우보증인인 E은 2015. 6. 23. 이루어진 보완조사에서 "그 분 아버지 성함을 아세요?"라는 질문에 "이름을 잊어버렸다. 달력에 적어 놨다."라고 답변하였고, "그 분은 사할린에서 무슨 일 했어요?"라는 질문에는 "옛날에 옆에 살았으니까 다 적어 놨어. 내가 수술 여러 번 해서 정신이 혼미하다. 우울증 앓아서 그래 요."라고 답변하였다.

3) In filing an application for re-deliberation, the Plaintiff attached three additional co-suretiess. Among them, F was a person who first became aware of the Deceased since 1944, and G was born in 1939.

C. Since the May 1945, H made a statement that he was forced to mobilize the deceased from his children when he liveded in the Easternine with the deceased.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, the evidence as seen earlier, Gap evidence Nos. 3, Eul evidence Nos. 2, 6, 8, and 9 (including branch numbers), each entry, and the purport of the whole pleadings

C. Determination

1) From April 1, 1938 to August 15, 1945, Article 2 subparag. 3 (a) and Article 4 subparag. 1 of the Compulsory Mobilization Investigation Act stipulate that "the person who died during the period of forced mobilization abroad by a worker, etc., or during the period of overseas mobilization or during the period of return from Korea (the victim of forced mobilization by overseas)" shall be paid consolation money, and the person who wishes to receive consolation money shall submit evidentiary materials verifying that he/she is a victim of forced mobilization by overseas pursuant to Article 27(1) of the Compulsory Mobilization Investigation Act and Article 24(1)4 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.

2) In light of the facts and circumstances as seen earlier and the purport of the entire arguments, or the following facts and circumstances, the materials submitted by the Plaintiff alone are insufficient to regard the deceased as a victim of the mobilization of foreign compulsory force on the ground that he/she died while serving in the street in the coal mine that was caused by compulsory mobilization during the period of a Japanese-Japan dispute, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

① Before the enforcement of the Compulsory Mobilization Investigation Act, the Plaintiff did not take any measures related to the facts of damage prior to the instant application, such as reporting on the forced mobilization to the committee organized pursuant to the Special Act on Investigating the Truth of Force Mobilization Damage under the Japanese colonial Rule, which was established pursuant to the Special Act on Investigating the Truth of Force Mobilization Damage under the Japanese colonial Rule.

② On November 23, 1959, the deceased’s death certificate issued by Russia was considered to have died on November 23, 1959, but no personal information, other than the fact that the year of birth was 1904, is recorded.

③ Although the Plaintiff submitted the instant application accompanied by the written statement of Ma-sureties, it is difficult to believe that E made a statement to the effect that he was unable to properly memory the deceased, and that his mind was mixed at the time of complementary investigation. As additional Ma-Ba, F became aware of the deceased since 1944, and G was born in 1939, it is difficult for him to directly understand whether he was forced to mobilize the deceased. Since H was killed in the Korean War since the Sea of 1945, it is difficult to view that the forced mobilization was committed against the deceased’s children, and it is difficult to recognize the fact of forced mobilization of the deceased solely based on the statement of Ma-Ba’s guarantee.

④ In the process of supplementary investigation and reinspection, the Plaintiff stated that he was unable to properly memory the Deceased, or that he was from the surrounding senior citizens, and that he did not seem to know the fact that he was forced to mobilize the Deceased.

⑤ It is true that the deceased C was recognized as a victim of compulsory mobilization by overseas, and that D, his/her father, was determined to pay consolation benefits on June 25, 2015. However, the submitted materials alone are insufficient to recognize C as the deceased’s pro-Japanese relationship as alleged by the Plaintiff. The above case was found to have not been recognized even though D reported damage caused by compulsory mobilization around 2005. Accordingly, in the course of the investigation, C was confirmed to be the victim and D was the bereaved family and determined to pay consolation benefits on the basis of the material, such as the detailed statement of three persons as to the guarantor of friendship, the certificate of marriage in the issuance of Russia, etc., and it cannot be deemed as identical to the above case

3) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion premiseding that the deceased is a victim of forced mobilization abroad cannot be accepted.

4. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed on the ground that it is without merit.