2. With respect to the plaintiff B's claim, this court shall accept the claim as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except where the court decides " August 30, 1997" in Part 4, 17 of the judgment of the court of first instance to " August 30, 197" as " August 30, 197."

3. As to the plaintiff A's claim

A. The plaintiff A asserted that the deceased was confined to a prison due to a espionage crime, and he was able to become aware of the fact that he was married with the plaintiff B, the only child of the deceased, who was married with the plaintiff B, and that he was faced with a crisis in the marital life of the plaintiff B, due to the care of the deceased released, and was friendly. The deceased was exposed to a friendly disease due to the care of the deceased discharged, and suffered mental, physical, and economic damage, such as continuing surveillance from an investigative agency even after he was designated as a person subject to security surveillance.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay consolation money to the plaintiff A.

B. Determination 1) In order to establish a tort, an intentional or negligent unlawful act must inflict loss on another person, and the person who asserts such an unlawful act and the liability to prove the proximate causal relation with the occurrence of loss (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da36302, Jan. 29, 2015). 2), based on the evidence as seen earlier, the deceased discharged on Oct. 6, 1992 after maturity; the Plaintiff married the deceased on Apr. 25, 198, who was the only child of the deceased on Apr. 25, 198; the deceased was dead on Jan. 20, 2006; however, the fact of recognition alone is recognized, and the Plaintiff A, who was merely a relative relationship, is directly and specific due to the Defendant’s act.