Among plaintiffs D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, and L, the part of this case is reversed.

1. As to the grounds of appeal by Plaintiffs A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, and L

A. As to the assertion on the validity of the judicial compromise under Article 18(2) of the Act on the Restoration of Honor of and Compensation to Persons Related to Democratization Movement (hereinafter “The Act on the Compensation for Democratization Movement”) before being amended by Act No. 8273 of Jan. 26, 2007

(a) The same shall apply;

(1) The purpose of Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Act is to promote the stabilization of livelihood and the improvement of welfare of persons who have made sacrifice in relation to democratization movements and their bereaved family members by the State for their restoration of honor and compensation, and contribute to the development of democracy and national harmony. Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Act provides that "dalivatization movements" refers to activities that have contributed to the establishment of democratic constitutional order and the extension of people's freedom and rights by resisting the authoritative rule that violates the fundamental order of democracy since August 7, 1969 and infringes on the fundamental rights of the people guaranteed by the Constitution, thereby contributing to the establishment of democratic constitutional order and by enhancing the people's rights and rights. The main sentence of subparagraph 2 of the Act refers to persons related to democratization movements (hereinafter referred to as "related persons") who are deliberated upon by the Compensation Deliberation Committee (hereinafter referred to as the "Committee") under Article 4 among the following persons:

A person who intends to receive compensation, etc. shall apply to the Committee in writing, along with relevant evidential documents, under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree.

Article 14 (1) provides for "the compensation decision" and Article 14 (1).