손해배상(기)
1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against Plaintiff A, B, and C shall be modified as follows.
The defendant shall make 432,405 against the plaintiff A.
1. The reasoning of this court concerning this part of the basic facts is as stated in Paragraph 1 of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, and this part is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The Defendant asserts that the lawsuit of this case by this case is unlawful, since the Defendant received compensation under the Act on the Compensation, etc. for Persons Related to the May 18 Democratization Movement (hereinafter “the 5.18 Democratization Compensation Act”) due to the same cause as the Plaintiffs claimed in this case, it is deemed that a judicial compromise has been established under Article 16 of the 5.18 Democratization Compensation Act.
Article 16(2) of the 5/18 Democratization Compensation Act provides that "when the applicant has consented to the determination of the payment of compensation, etc. under this Act, a judicial compromise under the Civil Procedure Act shall be deemed to have been achieved with respect to the damage incurred in relation to the May 18 Democratization Movement." According to the respective statements in Eul evidence 10, Eul evidence 11 through 14, Eul evidence 15-1 through Eul evidence 15-6, the plaintiff A, Eul, C, D, and deceased G conducted activities such as notifying the truth of the 5/180 Gwangju Democratization Movement, around the end of July 1981, and was sentenced to punishment for violating the National Security Act (hereinafter the above case "K"), around 1981, by forcing the investigators belonging to the Daejeon Provincial Police Agency for the payment of compensation, 300 won and 180, 306, 160, 3016, 30816, 196, 20816, 20816, and 406, 196, etc.