A. The summary of the case is the case where the plaintiffs were to seek consolation money and compensation for delay based on public official's official tort, asserting that the victims and their surviving family members suffered emotional distress, and that the plaintiffs were to receive consolation money and compensation for delay on or around July 9, 1950, on the grounds that the plaintiffs were to die or die due to the death of saves, such as saves and saves (hereinafter "saves of this case") who were detained in the public official office without due process on or around July 9, 1950, immediately after the outbreak of the Korean War.

The judgment of the court of first instance accepted part of the plaintiffs' claims and dismissed the remainder of claims, and the plaintiffs appealed to the part of the amount indicated in the "Amount of plaintiff's appeal" in the attached Form 2 of the loss amount list, and the defendant appealed to the whole part of the loss.

B. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the premise facts is as stated in Paragraph 1 of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except where “Evidence Nos. 1 through 70 (including paper numbers)” is deemed as “Evidence Nos. 1 through 96 (including paper numbers), and Evidence Nos. 7” of the judgment of the first instance. Thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Whether the liability for damages is established (the plaintiff's assertion) as a person who has the authority to direct and decide the Minister of Public Administration and Security, the military police dispatched for official residence, and the police in the area of official residence, who caused the death of the victims of this case by unlawful disposal or advisory action, shall be liable to compensate the victims of this case and their bereaved families for mental suffering caused by such unlawful act as a public official's official duty.

[The defendant's assertion] The truth-finding decision of this case is based on the family's statements and expert testimony of the witness.