A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. In a case where the court orders the payment of consolation money for non-property damage caused by a tort against the plaintiffs' grounds of appeal, it is a principle that the amount of consolation money can be determined at its own discretion, taking into account the various circumstances of the court of fact. However, in a case where the court determines the amount of consolation money, there is a limit to the amount that should be determined in accordance with the times and the general legal sentiment, and in a case where it goes beyond the limit and clearly goes against the ideology of fair sharing of damages and the principle of equity, it is beyond the limit of the court of fact-finding (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Da3527, Dec. 24, 2009)

“The case before and after the Korean War,” which had undergone a determination of truth by the Framework Act on the Settlement of History for the Truth and Reconciliation, was about 60 years from the time of occurrence of the damage, and the Act on the Settlement of History in the past aims at the uniform recovery of the damage, and there are special circumstances, such as the number of victims and the distribution across the country. Therefore, in determining the amount of consolation money, equity among the victims is important and appropriate adjustment is also necessary based on the number of bereaved family members claiming compensation (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2012Da202819, May 16, 2013).

In consideration of the characteristics of the case of sacrifice in prison, etc., the lower court determined consolation money of KRW 20 million for the deceased E (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) who died in the above case, and KRW 10 million for the deceased, who is his spouse, and KRW 2 million for the plaintiffs who are the deceased, respectively, in consideration of the circumstances as indicated in its reasoning, including the characteristics of the case of sacrifice in prison, etc.

However, according to the records, ① in the case where a State agency’s systematic and intentional act of damaging life was committed, the necessity to prevent the recurrence of similar cases should also be considered as an important reason for the calculation of consolation money; ② in determining the amount of consolation money, due to the unique characteristics of the case of sacrifice before and after the Korean War, there is a need to consider equity among the victims and appropriate adjustment according to the number of bereaved family members claiming consolation money; ③ in the case of sacrifice before and after the Korean War, there have already been several cases where consolation money was already determined based on the similar criteria; ③ in this case, the amount of consolation money recognized by the court below to the Plaintiffs is remarkably lower than the amount of consolation money recognized to the other victims.

In light of these circumstances, the lower court did not properly consider the circumstances that should be considered in determining the amount of consolation money, and accordingly, deemed that the amount of consolation money determined by the lower court is manifestly contrary to the ideology of fair sharing of damages and the principle of equity.

Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the calculation of consolation money, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and there is a justifiable ground for appeal assigning this error.

2. In a case where the State received an application for ascertaining the truth of the victim, who is subject to the application of the Act on the Settlement of History, and received a truth-finding decision from the "Committee for the Settlement of History for Truth and Reconciliation" (hereinafter referred to as the "Settlement Committee"), it is reasonable to deem that there are special circumstances where the victim or his/her bereaved family exercises rights within a reasonable period of time, and where the victim or his/her bereaved family exercises rights within the reasonable period of time, there is no reason to believe that the defendant would not claim the extinction of rights at least. Nevertheless, the State’s assertion of the expiration of extinctive prescription against the victim constitutes an abuse of rights against the principle of good faith and thus is not allowed (see the above en banc Decision)

According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the record, the court below’s findings of fact-finding on June 22, 2010, which found the deceased as the victim of the sacrifice case of a person who was killed in prison, after the enforcement of the Act on the Settlement of History, were affirmed. The Plaintiffs, who were the bereaved family members of the deceased, did not take any affirmative measures, such as legislation for the recovery of damage, etc. after the truth-finding decision, and at the 11 month period from the date of the fact-finding decision of this case,

Examining these facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the lower court rendered a truth-finding decision that the Defendant confirmed the deceased as a victim and granted the same trust that the Defendant did not invoke the benefit of extinctive prescription, and the Plaintiffs, the bereaved family members of the deceased, were the date of the truth-finding decision

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of the completion of extinctive prescription against the plaintiffs' claim for damages constitutes an abuse of rights against the principle of good faith and thus, it cannot be allowed.

Therefore, the decision of the court below that rejected the defendant's defense of extinctive prescription is just in its conclusion, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the lower judgment against the Plaintiffs is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. Defendant’s appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Min Il-young

Justices Lee In-bok et al.

Justices Park Young-young