손해배상(기)
1. All lawsuits filed by Plaintiffs 13, 28, and 29 shall be dismissed.
2. All of the claims filed by Plaintiffs 1 through 12, 14 through 27, and 30 to 159.
1. The gist of the plaintiffs' assertion was that the police station of the Jeollabuk-do and the police station of each police station, police station of each branch, defense unit, and military personnel who were engaged in sub-presidential operations were involved in sub-presidential operations and were killed without due process, since March 3, 1949 to September 1952, in nine Si/Gun areas, including the Si/Gu-Eup, Do-Eup, Do-si, and Gunsan, Jeollabuk-do.
The net FH, FI, FJ, FK, FK, FL, FN, FO, FP, F Q Qu, FR, FS, FTS, FTS, FV, FF, FV, FY, FY, FY, FY, FZ, GA, GB, GC, GC, GD, GD, and GE are residents living in the area in the area in which they were located, and were killed or wounded after being killed or committed on the spot by the military police from November 1, 1950 to May 1951.
The murder of the deceased (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) by the military police officers belonging to the Defendant is a tort that infringes on the people’s right to life, which is the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution, and infringes on the due process and the right to trial.
Therefore, the defendant has a duty to compensate for mental damage suffered by the deceased and their bereaved family members due to a public official's unlawful act.
2. Judgment on the defendant's main defense
A. The Defendant of the Plaintiff M (the Plaintiff’s list Nos. 13 and 13, hereinafter “Plaintiff’s list”) asserts that the Plaintiff’s lawsuit is unlawful because it was filed by the deceased person before the lawsuit was filed. As such, there is no dispute between the parties as to the death of the Plaintiff M on July 24, 2012, which was before the instant lawsuit was filed, and thus, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit was filed by the deceased person before the lawsuit was filed, and is unlawful.
B. Plaintiff AB (P) and AC (PP No. 29) asserted that Plaintiff AB (P) and AC’s lawsuit violates the principle of prohibition of double lawsuit, and thus, it is unlawful. Accordingly, in full view of the purport of the pleading in the statement No. 8, Plaintiff AB and AC as of July 24, 2012, Plaintiff AB and AC are against the Defendant under this Court No. 2012,523405.