손해배상(국)
All appeals are dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against each party.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. As to the grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) from 1950 to January 18, 2013, which was 60 years after the date of the closing of argument in the first instance trial of this case, the lower court recognized that the monetary value, etc. at the time of the closing of argument was considerably changed compared with the time of tort. Considering the changed circumstances, the lower court calculated the solatium amount to be paid to the Plaintiff by the Defendant (hereinafter “Defendant”) as at the time of the closing of argument in the first instance trial of this case as at the time of the closing of argument in this case, and ordered the Plaintiff to pay damages for delay only for the period after the date of the closing of argument in the first instance trial.
In addition, the lower court deemed that there is a reasonable dispute as to the existence and scope of the obligation until the date on which the lower judgment was rendered, and accordingly, paid damages for delay as prescribed by the Civil Act until February 15, 2019, which is the date on which the lower judgment was rendered.
In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal principles on the starting point of calculation of damages for delay or the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion of Legal Proceedings
2. Judgment on the Defendant’s grounds of appeal
A. On August 30, 2018, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that Article 2(1)3 of the Framework Act on the Settlement of History for Truth and Reconciliation of the Civil Act (hereinafter “The Act”) as to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles as to grounds for retrial, the part applied to “the case of mass sacrifice by a private person” under Articles 166(1) and 766(2) of the same Act, and Article 2(1)4 of the same Act, which applies to “the case of suspicion of the manipulation of serious human rights violations.”
[The Constitutional Court en banc Order 2014Hun-Ba148, 162, 219, 466, 2015Hun-Ba50, 440 (combined), 2014Hun-Ba23, 290, 2016Hun-Ba419 (Consolidated)] (hereinafter “instant decision of unconstitutionality”). The lower court raised by the Plaintiff.