2. B

A. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff A the amount of KRW 1,371,360,00, KRW 434,565,60, and each of them shall be 5% per annum from October 30, 2014 to November 20, 2014, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

B. The plaintiffs' remaining claims are dismissed.

2. One-third of the total litigation costs is borne by the Plaintiffs, and the remainder is borne by the Defendant.

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

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff A the amount of KRW 2,138,026,66 and KRW 1,301,232,266 and each of them shall be 5% per annum from June 13, 1978 to June 13, 1978, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment (the plaintiff withdrawn the claim of the actual import from the trial court to the date of full payment).

2. Purport of appeal

(a) Defendant;

The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance is revoked, and all of the plaintiffs' claims corresponding to the revocation are dismissed.

B. Plaintiffs

The part against the plaintiffs falling under the order to pay under the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs A 796,947,103 won, 875,536,325 won to the plaintiffs B, and 5% per annum from June 13, 1978 to the date the judgment of the court of first instance is rendered, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

The reasoning of this court's reasoning is as follows. This court's reasoning is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the part resulting from the dismissal under Paragraph (2) below. Thus, this court's reasoning is accepted by the main sentence of Article 420

2. Parts to be dried;

A. On August 30, 194, Nos. 2, 14, and 16 of the first instance judgment "No. 28, 194" were conducted.

B. 2-A. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance regarding “the plaintiff’s assertion” (from No. 6, No. 10 to No. 12) is as follows. The plaintiffs’ assertion is as follows.

Since the plaintiffs and their parents suffered mental distress due to each tort committed against the plaintiffs on the part of the defendant, the defendant suffered mental distress, the defendant is liable for damages to the plaintiff A: 2,138,026,66 won (2 billion won for consolation money due to the plaintiff's tort against the plaintiff A + KRW 100 million for consolation money due to the plaintiff's tort against the plaintiff Eul + KRW 46,66,666,666 - Criminal compensation inheritance amount of net C and net D KRW 428,640,00 for each tort against the plaintiff Eul; and KRW 1,301,232,266 won for consolation money due to the plaintiff's tort against the plaintiff Eul (= KRW 200 million for consolation money due to the plaintiff's tort against the plaintiff Eul + KRW 466,666,665,434,400 for consolation money). The defendant is liable for damages from the judgment of the court of first instance to the plaintiff's claim for consolation money from the plaintiff 36."

1) According to the above facts of recognition, investigators belonging to the security company are ① the former Armed Forces Security Forces Ordinance (1980. 1980.

1. According to Article 1 of the Presidential Decree, a security unit takes charge of matters concerning military security and intelligence and matters concerning an investigation into a crime under Article 44 subparagraph 2 of the Gun Council Act. Under Article 44 of the former Gun Council Act (amended by Act No. 344 of Apr. 17, 1981), the security unit investigated the case under the jurisdiction of the Gun Council, but it did not comply with due process stipulated in the Constitution and the Criminal Procedure Act in the arrest and detention of the plaintiffs, and it was difficult to recognize the plaintiffs Eul as illegal confinement for about 28 days without a warrant of detention for the plaintiffs, and the defendant was found to have been guilty of any unlawful acts committed by a public official under the name of an investigator of the Gun Council without a right to investigate, such as preparing a false public document in the name of an investigator of the plaintiffs, who is a public prosecutor's office, to the extent that the acts were committed during the investigation and detention of the plaintiffs.

2) Meanwhile, even though the plaintiffs alleged that they were guilty due to illegal confinement and harsh treatment in the above trial process, the court did not properly conduct the trial, and accordingly, adopted the suspect interrogation protocol, etc., which is not admissible as evidence, and found the plaintiffs guilty. The judges in charge of the above trial have committed tort.

However, even if a judge’s error did not comply with the provisions of law, this does not result in the State’s liability for damages caused by an unlawful act as referred to in Article 2(1) of the State Compensation Act, and there is a special circumstance to recognize that the relevant judge, in order to recognize the State’s liability for compensation, had exercised the authority clearly contrary to the purport of the authority granted to him by the judge, such as where the relevant judge rendered a judgment with unlawful or unjust purposes, or where the law clearly violates the standards demanding compliance with the judge’s performance of duties (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da24218, Jul. 11,

As seen earlier, the lower court erred by adopting as evidence the false confession of the Plaintiffs, which has no admissibility of evidence due to the lack of voluntariness in the judgment of the instant case, and convicted the Plaintiffs. However, solely on such circumstance, it is difficult to view that the said judges exercised it clearly in violation of the purport of the authority granted by the said judges, such as where the said judges tried with unlawful or unjust purposes, or where the law clearly violates the standards demanding compliance with the judge in the performance of his/her duties, etc.,

Therefore, the plaintiffs' assertion on this is rejected.

D. 4-A. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance regarding the plaintiff's claim for lost profits (from No. 9 to No. 14 to No. 10) is deleted.

E. Parts 10, 15, and 18 of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows. "In light of these circumstances, consolation money for the plaintiffs, their parents, and net C and network D shall be determined as follows."

A person shall be appointed.

(f) Each of the “as of March 11, 201” in the first instance judgment’s conduct No. 10 and the “as of March 11, 2014,” respectively, shall be amended to “as of October 30, 2014,” and “as of March 27, 2014,” “as of March 20, 2014,” and “as of November 20, 2014,” respectively.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance differs in part from this conclusion, it is decided as per Disposition.

Judges Park Jong-young

Judges Kim Gung-han