Of the plaintiffs, the part against the defendant C and D against the defendant C and Y, which is the litigant of the deceased Party B, is reversed.

1. As to the Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal, the lower court, based on its stated reasoning, arrested and detained Plaintiff A by specific instructions of Defendant C and D.

In light of the lack of evidence to prove that an investigator of the joint investigation headquarters affiliated with the Martial Law Headquarters (hereinafter “joint investigative headquarters”) infringed upon the Plaintiff’s right to interview and communicate with counsel and family interview and other rights, etc. by the said Defendants’ direct instructions, the said investigator did not constitute a separate tort. The Seoul National University’s expulsion disposition against the said Plaintiff, which was conducted in a criminal trial against the said Plaintiff, or after the said criminal trial, and the registration of political deprivation and convict lists following the final and conclusive criminal judgment, etc.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable. Contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules,

2. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant C and D

A. In a case where a public prosecution was instituted on the basis of evidence, etc. collected by a State agency due to an illegal act, etc. during the investigation process, and a final judgment of conviction was rendered, but the existence of grounds for retrial was revealed later and the judgment of innocence became final and conclusive in the retrial procedure, and the State claims damages against the State due to an illegal act, etc. of the State agency, it shall be deemed that the obligee was de facto

Therefore, the defense of the expiration of the statute of limitations by the debtor cannot be allowed as an abuse of rights against the principle of good faith.