2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

A. (1) On October 19, 1948, the Army Headquarters under the jurisdiction of the Defendant issued an order to return to Jeju Island for the suppression of Jeju 43 Incident to the 14th Army that had been stationed in the area of female trees as of October 19, 1948. On the other hand, approximately 2,00 military personnel belonging to the said 14 joint soldiers, who were in opposition thereto, went away from Jeju Island by causing a disturbance. (2) The Government established the District Headquarters in Gwangju, established the District Headquarters in Gwangju, and ordered that the extinguishing forces, such as the Army B through 6, 12, and 15 of the 1948, refund the female trees to Jeju Island on October 27, 194, after declaring martial law in the area of female trees. (3) On October 22, 1948, the suppression army recovered the female trees on October 27, 194.

3) Since then, the suppression group had been engaged in the anti-state army operations centered on the Dogsan Islands. From the end of October 1948 to July 1949, many civilians were killed in the course of covering the anti-state army cooperation and the persons suspected of benefiting from the Magnam-gun’s Myeon, Between the end of October 1948 and the police from the end of July 1949 (hereinafter “former case of civilian sacrifice in the area of the same Gu”).

B. As to the truth-finding process conducted by the Committee on the Settlement of History for Reconciliation of the Truth and Reconciliation (hereinafter “The Committee on Settlement of History”) is deemed to be the “Committee on Settlement of Truth and Reconciliation”

(1) On July 8, 2008, the “victim” in the list of claims filed by the Plaintiff and the amount of appeal filed by each Plaintiff on July 8, 2008 (hereinafter “the deceased”).

3) As to the truth-finding findings, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the truth-finding findings.

(c) The plaintiffs and the deceased are bereaved family members of each deceased. [The facts that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, the entry of Gap evidence No. 26, and the purport of the whole argument.]

2. The parties' assertion

A. The gist of the plaintiffs' assertion was that the military personnel belonging to the defendant and the police killed the deceased who did not undergo due process without any justifiable reason.