손해배상(기)
1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 496,213,042 to Plaintiff B; (b) KRW 509,090,909 to Plaintiff C; and (c) KRW 90,909,090 to Plaintiff D; and (b) Plaintiff E, E, and F.
1.The following facts may be acknowledged, either in dispute between the parties or in each entry (including each number) in Gap evidence 1 to 20, by integrating the purpose of the entire pleadings:
Plaintiff
1) The Plaintiff B is a Korean national who was born in Japan. The Plaintiff B is a Korean national residing in Japan. The Plaintiff B is the Army Security Headquarters under the Defendant’s control (hereinafter “Security Company”) around December 2, 1975, when he was studying in a college of Seoul University.
(2) After that, the security officer’s investigators detained the Plaintiff B of detention warrant issued on January 8, 1976, until the enforcement of the warrant on January 17, 1976, without the warrant of a judge.
An investigator belonging to a security officer investigated Plaintiff B from the loss or ice loss of the security officer Nam-dong, and forced Plaintiff B to make a confession with the content that Plaintiff B was subject to an order issued by a member of an anti-government organization and was a espionage act to detect and collect national secrets, and during that process, the said Plaintiff was saved, and was unable to properly locked.
3) The case related to Plaintiff B was forwarded to the prosecution around February 4, 1976. At the time, the prosecution did not additionally investigate the matters not examined before the case was forwarded except the written protocol of interrogation concerning Plaintiff B and joint suspects, and the co-suspects including Plaintiff B did not have received the assistance of counsel at the time of investigation by the prosecution. No statement was made to the effect that there was any repeated statement on the same purport as the written statement or written statement of each written protocol or written protocol of interrogation of a suspect before transfer to the prosecution. No statement was made to the effect that there was any rebuttal or denial of the suspected facts except for repeated statements on the same purport as the written statement or written statement of each written protocol or written protocol of interrogation of a suspect before transfer to the prosecution. No statement was made by the