1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for adding the following judgments as to the allegations added or supplemented by the plaintiffs, and therefore, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional matters to be determined;

A. The plaintiffs asserts that the extinctive prescription is not applicable to the tort committed by the State that should protect the people and guarantee the fundamental rights of the people. As such, the deceased and their bereaved family members, the victims of the Jinju Unsaeng case, are not applicable to the plaintiffs' right to claim damages against the deceased and their bereaved family members, the mother-friendly netF

This part of the plaintiffs' assertion that the extinctive prescription cannot be applied to the claim for damages caused by a tort of the State solely on the grounds that the State is obliged to protect the people and guarantee the fundamental rights of the people, and that the extinctive prescription is not wholly excluded from the application of the provisions regarding the extinctive prescription under the Civil Act or the former Accounting Act, etc. Therefore, the extinctive prescription cannot be applied to the claim for damages caused by a tort of the deceased and the deceased F.

B. The Plaintiffs asserted that, as the former Review Board rendered a truth-finding decision on the case of sacrificeing the truth-finding prison, and that the Defendant paid damages to the victims, the Defendant did not explicitly refuse the “Act on the Restoration of Honor to and Compensation for Civilian Victims before and after the Korean War,” which was proposed to recover and compensate for the honor of the civilian victims and their bereaved families before and after the Korean War, the Defendant recognized the Defendant’s liability for damages against the Plaintiffs at least on May 29, 2012, when the said Act was repealed to the expiration of the term of office of National Assembly members, or renounced the statute of limitations benefits

The acceptance of the obligation as the reason for the waiver of extinctive prescription.