손해배상(기)
1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 41,740,259; (b) KRW 9,534,465; (c) Plaintiff C, D, E, F, and G respectively; and (d) KRW 6,356,310; and (c) Plaintiff B.
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
(a) The facts under the recognition may be found, either in dispute between the parties or in each entry in Gap evidence 1 to 8 (including each number), with a comprehensive view to the whole purport of the pleadings.
1) The military police squad consisting of the 6th century, 20, 6th, 8th, 6th, 6th, 8th, 600, 6th, 8th, 625 war, the former North Korean police, and the North Korean police, etc., belonging to the Defendant J, carried out as soon as possible in the area of the former North Korean territory from November 1, 1950 to May 1, 1951.
In the process, the majority of the civilians in the above regions were killed by police and military personnel without due process due process due to salutism, rapid salutism, salutism, etc.
(hereinafter referred to as “the civilian sacrifice case in the ancient area”) b) the network J (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”).
Around January 5, 1951 (A. 28. 1. 1. 1. 2. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 5, 1951), the Defendant entered the class without justifiable grounds, and died on the 12. 2th of the same month, the Framework Act on the previous Arrangement of History for Truth and Reconciliation (hereinafter “The Act on the Settlement of History”) (hereinafter “The Framework Act on the Settlement of History”) in the past for Truth and Reconciliation, as well as the refugees who have driven away in the area of Go Chang-gun, Go Chang-gun, Go Chang-gun, Go Chang-gun, Go Chang-gun, Gyeong-gun, and Jeonnam-gun, Gonam-gun.
(1) The Committee on the Settlement of Truth and History established pursuant to the Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Committee on Settlement of Truth and History”) shall be deemed to be the Committee.
(B) On December 1, 2005, from around November 30, 2006 to around November 30, 2006, K et al. received an application from 129 persons including K et al. to find the truth about the case of the civilian sacrifice in the highly creative area that occurred at the time of 625 War, and conducted an applicant’s investigation, witness investigation, and on-site investigation. (B) After that, on the case of the civilian sacrifice in the highly creative area on June 30, 2010, the previous Regulatory Commission did not follow due process for the military scopic price.