2 B

3 C

4 D

5 E

6F

7 G

8 H

9. I

10. J

11, K

12. L.

13. The lawsuits of the deceased M;

77.N

(b) 0;

14. P;

15. Q.

16. R

The Defendant’s appeals against Plaintiff E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, P, Q, R and net M are all dismissed.

The costs of appeal against plaintiffs E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, P, Q, R and net M are assessed against the defendant.

1. As to the grounds of appeal on whether to recognize the State’s liability, the lower court determined that the Defendant was responsible for compensating the Plaintiff A and his family members for emotional distressed due to such tort, on the grounds that the investigators affiliated with the Defendant committed a tort for a long period of time by illegally arresting and detaininging the Plaintiff A.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to State liability, as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal. This part of the grounds of appeal

2. As to the grounds of appeal on extinctive prescription, a public prosecution was instituted on the basis of evidence, etc. collected by the State agency due to an illegal act, etc. during the investigation process, and a final judgment of conviction was rendered, but the existence of

Where a claim for damages is filed against the State due to an illegal act, etc. of a State agency after the judgment of innocence has become final and conclusive in the retrial procedure, it shall be deemed that the obligee had de facto disability that could not expect that the claim for damages will be filed until

In such a case, the defense of the completion of the extinctive prescription by the State, which is the debtor, may not be allowed as an abuse of rights against the principle of good faith. However, barring any special circumstance, the creditor shall exercise the right within six months from the date when the judgment of innocence was rendered to dismiss the retrial, and in principle, within six months from the date when the retrial was rendered final and conclusive, and whether the creditor has filed a lawsuit claiming compensation for damages (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Da201844, Dec. 12, 2013, etc.).

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance as cited by the court below and the record, the plaintiff A was illegally arrested by the investigator belonging to the defendant on June 6, 1961 and submitted for a trial on November 8, 1961. Special punishment for special crimes

The facts that the five-year judgment of conviction was affirmed due to the violation of the Act, and the above plaintiff filed a petition for retrial against the above final judgment with the Seoul Central District Court 201 Gohap20, and received a judgment of innocence on October 28, 2011 on the grounds that no evidence of the facts charged was found in the above court. The prosecutor’s appeal and final appeal against them were all dismissed on May 24, 2012, which became final and conclusive on May 24, 2012. The plaintiffs in the above plaintiff and family relations filed the lawsuit in this case on July 11, 2012, which were six months after the date the above new judgment became final and conclusive.

Therefore, in light of the above legal principles, the plaintiffs can prevent the defendant from defending extinctive prescription defense.

Since the court below should be deemed to have exercised its right within a reasonable period, it is justifiable to reject the defendant's defense of extinctive prescription. This part of the ground of appeal cannot be accepted.

3. As to the ground of appeal on the loss of the deceased S et al.

According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record, Plaintiff A was sentenced to a five-year imprisonment and released as a special amnesty on December 16, 1963, and the said Plaintiff married with the deceased S, and was born between August 14, 1966 and January 26, 1973.

In order for the victim and the new family members to claim consolation money on the ground of a tort against the State after having been discharged from prison due to an illegal act committed by a State agency, barring any special circumstance, the State should assert and prove the fact that the State committed a separate illegal act against the victim, and that the victim was suffering from mental distress due to the illegal act in the status of having a family relation with the victim (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da36302, Jan. 29, 2015).

However, even after examining the record, there is no evidence to support that the state committed a separate tort against the married network S or their children after the plaintiff was released, or that the state committed a tort against the above plaintiff while they had a family relationship with the plaintiff A.

Nevertheless, the lower court, based on its stated reasoning, determined that the Defendant is liable for damages against Plaintiff A’s wifes and children. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on proximate causal relation with the establishment of tort and the burden of proof, and failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The allegation in the grounds of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, among the judgment below, the part against the defendant against the plaintiff A, B, C, and D is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. The defendant's appeal against the remaining plaintiffs is dismissed, and the costs of appeal against the plaintiffs are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench

Justices Lee In-bok et al.

Justices Kim Yong-deok

Justices Kim In-young