The costs of appeal are assessed against each party.

1. The amount of consolation money for non-property damage suffered by the Plaintiffs’ grounds of appeal may be determined by the fact-finding court at its discretion, taking into account various circumstances. In addition, the case of sacrifice before and after the Korean War, which was conducted a truth-finding decision pursuant to the Framework Act on the Settlement of History (hereinafter “the Act on the Settlement of History”) for the Truth and Reconciliation, was about 60 years since the date of occurrence of the damage, and the Act on the Settlement of History in the past is also pursuing a uniform recovery of the damage, and there are special circumstances, such as the victims’ number is very large, and the amount of consolation money is distributed across the country. Accordingly, in determining the amount of consolation money, equity among the victims should also be considered as important, and appropriate adjustment is also necessary based on the number of bereaved family members who have claimed the damages (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2012Da202819, May 16, 2013).

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the above legal principles and records, the amount of consolation money of this case recognized by the court of fact-finding does not deviate from the limits of the discretion of the court of fact-finding. Furthermore, it cannot be said that the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as otherwise alleged in the

2. (1) As to the Defendant’s grounds of appeal, the exercise of the right of defense on the grounds of extinctive prescription is governed by the principle of good faith and the principle of prohibition of abuse of rights, which are the major principles of the Civil Act, and thus, in a case where the obligor had the right holder trust it after the completion of extinctive prescription, and where the obligee exercised his right within a reasonable period that could have expected to exercise the right, the obligor’s assertion of the completion of extinctive prescription cannot be allowed as an abuse of rights against the principle of good faith. In this case, the obligor’s claim for the completion of extinctive prescription should not be limited to a short period equivalent to the suspension of prescription under the Civil Act, barring any special circumstance, and even in a case where it is inevitable to extend the period on the grounds of special circumstances in each case, the period of claim for damages

Meanwhile, inasmuch as the State, through the enactment of the Act on the Settlement of History in the past, once it declares the historical facts before several hundred years and declares that it would withdraw measures to recover damage to victims and their bereaved family members, it shall be deemed that the victim, etc. ultimately declared that he/she would accept the method of judicial relief seeking damages through the method of claiming State compensation unless there are special circumstances, and the purport of the State’s declaration that he/she would not refuse compensation by asserting the new extinctive prescription in a specific litigation case is spreading.

Therefore, in a case where the State received an application to verify the truth of a victim subject to the application of the Act on the Settlement of History and conducted a truth-finding decision that confirmed or presumed as a victim, it is reasonable to see that there are special circumstances where the victim or his/her bereaved family members exercise their rights within a reasonable period of time, where the victim or his/her bereaved family members exercise their rights within the reasonable period of time. Nevertheless, the State’s assertion of the expiration of extinctive prescription against the victim constitutes an abuse of rights against the principle of trust and good faith and thus cannot be allowed (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2012Da202819, supra).

(2) According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the record, the court below found the following facts: (a) after the enforcement of the Act on the Settlement of History, the court below confirmed that the deceased et al. (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”), who was the deceased’s predecessor, was the victim of the Cheongdo Military Civilian sacrifice case on July 17, 2008; and (b) the deceased’s bereaved family members did not take any affirmative measures such as legislation for the recovery of damage after the truth-finding decision, and (c) at the point one year after the date of the truth-finding decision, filed a lawsuit against the defendant for the claim of damages of this case.

In applying the legal principles as seen earlier, the court below’s determination that rejected the Defendant’s defense of extinctive prescription is justifiable in its conclusion, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to abuse of rights in the defense of extinctive prescription, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The court below’s determination that rejected the Defendant’s defense of extinctive prescription is justified. The court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to abuse of rights in the defense of extinctive prescription, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against each losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yang Chang-soo

Justices Kim Jae-soo et al.

Justices Jo Hee-de