2.*

3.*

4.*

5. *

6.*

A. The decision subject to a retrial shall be revoked.

B. The Defendant-Appellant shall pay to the Plaintiff (Plaintiff) 1,050,000,000 won, 450,000,000,000 won to the Plaintiff (Plaintiffs) and 750,000,000 won to the Plaintiff (Plaintiffs), and 300,000,000 won to the Plaintiff (Plaintiffs), and 680,000,000,000 won to the Plaintiff (Plaintiffs), and 520,00,000,000 won to each of them, and 520,00,000,000 to the Plaintiff (Plaintiffs) from March 8, 2011 to March 22, 2011, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

C. All remaining claims of the Plaintiff (Plaintiffs) are dismissed.

2. Of the total litigation costs, 40% of the total litigation costs shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Plaintiffs) and the remainder by the Defendant (Defendants) respectively.

3. The above paragraph (1)(b) may be provisionally executed.

The defendant Dun Dup defendant, hereinafter referred to as the "defendant") shall pay to the plaintiff *, *, *, * each 10,00,000 won to the plaintiff *, 5,000,000 won per annum from June 27, 1995 to the rendering date of the judgment subject to review, and 25% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. Purport of request for retrial;

The decision for review is revoked. The defendant pays to the plaintiff* KRW 1,80,000, KRW 700,000 to the plaintiff*, KRW 1,000,000 to the plaintiff*, KRW 500,000 to the plaintiff*, KRW 1,000,00 to the plaintiff*, KRW 1,100,000 to the plaintiff*, KRW 1,000,00 to the plaintiff*, and KRW 900,000 to the plaintiff*, KRW 5% per annum from June 24, 1981 to the date of full payment, and KRW 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

3. Purport of appeal

The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant shall be revoked, and the plaintiffs' claims corresponding to the above revocation shall be dismissed.

4. Purport of incidental appeal;

Each part of the judgment of the first instance against the plaintiffs falling under the order to pay below shall be revoked. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff* KRW 1,100,000,000, KRW 400,000 to the plaintiff*, KRW 500,000 to the plaintiff*, KRW 300,000 to the plaintiff*, KRW 700,000 to the plaintiff*, KRW 500,000 to the plaintiff*, KRW 500,000 to the plaintiff*, and each of them shall be paid 55% per annum from June 24, 1981 to August 19, 201, and KRW 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

The reasoning for the court's explanation on this case is as follows, except for adding "the scope of damages" under Article 4-c (d) and Article 4-d (d) of the judgment of the court of first instance to "the extent of damages" under Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, the part of the judgment of the court of first instance as to "the scope of damages" under Article 4-c (d) of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it shall be accepted as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

【Adle part of the judgment of the first instance court

C. Scope of damages

(1) Calculation of consolation money

The following circumstances should be taken into account in light of the facts acknowledged earlier as to consolation money, which is a mental damage that the Defendant has to pay for, and the following facts revealed in the statements in Gap evidence 25, 26-1 through 3, Gap evidence 27, Gap evidence 28-1 through 4, Gap evidence 29-1, and 29-2.

① The instant case is not a general tort committed by public officials belonging to the Defendant in the course of ordinary performance of official duties, but a special tort committed by public officials belonging to the Defendant, who protect the fundamental human rights of the people and guarantee the dignity and value of individuals as human beings, who are not arrested and detained without going through the procedures prescribed by the Constitution and Acts and subordinate statutes, the right not to be compelled to testify and make statements unfavorable to the accused, and when arrested or detained, such as the right to prompt assistance of the Plaintiff * and the deceased, by systematically infringing on the fundamental freedom and fundamental human rights of the deceased. This is a special tort committed by a rule of law.

② Plaintiff*, * and the Deceased’s tort committed by public officials belonging to the Defendant, who should not be repeated twice as seen above, led to the death of the Defendant, i.e., hostile unification and disturbance of the State. As a result, not only was a long-term converption, but also the number of other criminal cases, compared to the number of inmates of the other criminal cases. In particular, the Deceased did not receive appropriate treatment during his/her life, and did not go against his/her name that he/she was covered by his/her life.

③ Plaintiff** even after the release, after being subject to a long-term security surveillance, and under the special circumstances of inter-Korean division, illegally arrested the aforementioned Plaintiffs under the special circumstances of the division of Korea and North Korea, there was not only social cooling, social position disadvantage, economic lack, but also family members were suffering from the same suffering due to the wrong abortion that they are sypted and sypted, and they should have to suffer from physical and mental pain and a hole that are difficult to cope with.

④ Plaintiff***, * was illegally arrested and completed a life under guard through a trial, while the vehicle of the person around a espionage, who was the wife of a espionage, was unable to meet with due visit, was living under guard, was living under guard on his/her own and his/her family, and was living under guard to be responsible for the livelihood of himself/herself and his/her family, and Plaintiff*, and* even after his/her release, he/she was released from office until the verdict of innocence became final and conclusive.

⑤ The Plaintiff**, after the care of the Deceased’s love and care, the deceased was illegally arrested and detained at the age necessary for the creativity, and the deceased’s love and care was cared, and instead, the deceased was placed in the bullying and cooling-down of a espionage. In addition, the deceased was under the care to protect the deceased’s death from the rooftop without recovering his reputation, and was under the care of the deceased, and was under the care of the deceased, and was under the care of the body of the mind to be sunken and with mental distress during social life, such as employment thereafter, the deceased was suffering from a lot of disadvantage and mental distress.

(6) Furthermore, as seen earlier, this case constitutes exceptional cases where the Defendant’s damages for delay of the compensation liability due to the above tort shall be deemed to have arisen from the date of the date of the closing of argument in the fact-finding court, which is the basis for calculating the compensation amount. If damages for delay of the compensation liability due to the tort is deemed to have arisen from the date of closing of argument in the fact-finding court, which is the basis for calculating the compensation amount, as a result, no damages for delay shall be imposed before the date of closing of argument in the logical reasoning, and as a result, no damages for delay shall be imposed before the date of closing of argument, and as a result, no damages for delay shall be imposed at the time of the establishment of the compensation amount at the time of the tort, it is necessary to calculate the compensation amount based on the time of closing of argument in the calculation of the original amount of compensation amount by taking due account of the circumstances where the compensation for delay has been delayed for a considerable period from the time of closing of argument in the court.

7) In full view of all the circumstances shown in the arguments of this case, including the contents and degree of the tort of this case, the severity of illegality, the occupation, career, gravity and period of sentence of importation and sentence of punishment of the deceased, the time interval up to the present time when the tort of this case was committed, the plaintiffs' age and family relations, growth environment and property status, the criminal compensation amount received by the plaintiffs, the circumstances in which the deceased died and the situation after the deceased was released, and the situation after the release of this case, the consolation money for the defendant's tort of this case was paid, the amount of consolation money for the plaintiff *, the amount of KRW 1 billion for the plaintiff *, the amount of KRW 750 million for the plaintiff *, the amount of KRW 750 million for the plaintiff *, and the amount of KRW 450 million for the plaintiff * who is the wife's wife, and the amount of KRW 300 million for the plaintiff * who is the plaintiff *, the children of the plaintiff * * * *.

(2) Inheritance relationship

Plaintiff**, * The deceased succeeded to Australia pursuant to Article 1009(1) of the former Civil Code at the time of the deceased’s death (amended by Act No. 4199 of Jan. 13, 1990) as of January 13, 199 of the deceased’s death under Article 109(1) of the former Civil Code*, while the plaintiff* jointly succeeded to the deceased’s right to claim compensation for damages. The amount of inheritance of the plaintiff* is KRW 480 million = KRW 80 million + KRW 33/5). The amount of inheritance of the plaintiff* is KRW 320 million = KRW 80 million.

3) Claim on the date of commencement and determination of damages for delay

(A) The party's assertion

The Plaintiffs seek damages for delay of consolation money from June 24, 1981, which was the day following the judgment of conviction, as they were committed against the Plaintiffs*,* and the Deceased after the date of tort against the Plaintiffs.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that the damages for delay due to the tort of this case will occur from the time of the occurrence of considerable changes in the monetary value, etc. at the time of the conclusion of arguments to be taken into account in calculating consolation money as long as three months have elapsed between the time of the tort and the time of the conclusion of arguments.

(B) Determination

In light of the fact-finding that the victim could continuously enjoy the legal interests suffered by tort if there was no separate notice of performance, in principle, liability for damages arising from tort should be deemed to have accrued simultaneously with the establishment of the tort in light of the concept of fairness. However, in calculating consolation money, all circumstances that occurred at the time of the conclusion of fact-finding proceedings, including the national income level or monetary value, which is the basis for calculating consolation money, should also be reflected at the time of the conclusion of arguments. However, in cases where the amount of consolation money is determined at the time of the conclusion of arguments when there was no change in the monetary value at a time near the time when the tort occurred, there is no special problem even if damages for delay occurred at the time of the establishment of tort. However, in cases where it is deemed that there was a considerable change in the monetary value at the time of the conclusion of arguments at the time of the tort and damages for delay from the time of the conclusion of arguments, there is no problem of excessive compensation, even if there were no changes in the monetary value at the time of the conclusion of arguments.

From the above point of view, in cases where, as in this case, Plaintiff * and the public officials belonging to the Defendant have commenced illegal confinement against the Deceased as of February 25, 1980 through March 24, 1981 when the long-term period from June 24, 1981 where the Plaintiffs sought from June 24, 1981, up to 30 years from March 8, 201, which is the date of the closing of argument in this case, the price of Korea and the national income level, etc. have increased considerably, thereby resulting in the increase in the increased consolation money, the damages for delay that have been claimed by the Plaintiffs as of June 24, 1981 after the date of tort shall be paid with interest for delay.

Therefore, if there is a considerable change in the value of the currency value at the time of the conclusion of arguments to be considered in calculating consolation money after the lapse of three months from the time of tort and the time of the conclusion of arguments, compared to the time when the plaintiffs seek, damages for delay of compensation liability due to the tort shall be deemed to have occurred from the day of the conclusion of arguments at the trial court, which is the basis of calculating consolation money. It shall be deemed that damages for delay of compensation liability due to the tort occurs from the day of the conclusion of arguments at the trial court.

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, as consolation money for mental suffering caused by tort, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff* KRW 1.5 billion to the plaintiff*, KRW 450 million to the plaintiff*, KRW 750 million to the plaintiff*, KRW 30 million to the plaintiff*, KRW 6.88 billion to the plaintiff** + KRW 200 million + KRW 4880 million + KRW 480 million), the plaintiff* to the plaintiff* KRW 520 million + KRW 220 million + each of the date of closing argument at the trial at the court at the court at the above time, and to pay damages for delay to the plaintiff* by the day after the day after March 8, 201, which is deemed reasonable to dispute about the existence or scope of the duty to perform, until March 22, 2011, which is provided for in the Civil Act to the day after the day of full payment.

2. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiffs' claims are justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, the judgment of the court of first instance is to be modified as above. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Jeong Sung-ho

Judges Gyeong-sik