1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

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

The court's explanation of this case by the court of the first instance as to this case is based on the following 2. The reasons why the court of the first instance as to this case is stated are as follows: 5, 5, 16, and 7, 5, 17, 2, and 3, 420, 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5

The right to claim damages on the ground of tort is extinguished by prescription unless it is exercised within three years from the date on which the perpetrator knew of the damage and the damage (Article 766(1) of the Civil Act). However, it is reasonable to deem that the victim, etc., who received the truth-finding decision from the Recent Regulatory Commission, knew of the damage and the perpetrator when the truth-finding decision was made, barring special circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Da4091, Apr. 26, 2012). Therefore, the short-term statute statute of limitations should expire three years thereafter.

On the other hand, the right to claim damages against the State for tort has expired unless it is exercised for five years from the date of the tort (Article 32 of the former Accounting Act, which was repealed by Law No. 42 of April 7, 1921, and repealed by Law No. 217 of September 24, 1951). This is immediately proceeding from the date of tort unlike the period of short-term extinctive prescription of the above three years, and even if it was confirmed by the Framework Act on the Settlement of History before and after the Korean War under the Framework Act on the Settlement of History for Truth (hereinafter “The Act on the Settlement of History”), the extinctive prescription of the right to claim damages has already expired at the time of five years from the date of the occurrence of damage to the sacrifice.

B. It is limited to one of the grounds for extinctive prescription as to whether the defendant's assertion for the completion of extinctive prescription is not permissible as an abuse of rights.