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: (a) the court shall use “as shown in subparagraphs 2 through 7 of Part 3 of the judgment of the first instance” as “as described in the following 2; and (b) the “as described in subparagraphs 7 and 15” as “ September 3, 2014”; and (c) the Plaintiff’s assertion as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for supplement to the corresponding part, is the same as the supplement to the judgment as described in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, and thus, it shall be cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Supplementary judgment

A. The starting point of the extinctive prescription of the Plaintiffs’ claim for damages related to the victim H and F of the case of sacrificeing the Defendant’s assertion against the ASEAN should be calculated from the date when the Plaintiffs became aware of the fact that it was possible for the Plaintiffs to exercise their rights. As such, when Supreme Court Decision 2014Da203373 Decided May 16, 2014 was rendered, the above sentencing date should be considered as the starting point of the extinctive prescription period. Furthermore, the State’s claim for extinctive prescription in the case of sacrificeed by the State should be considered as abuse of rights

B. The claim for damages arising from tort is extinguished by the statute of limitations unless it is exercised within three years from the date on which the person was aware of the damage and the perpetrator (Article 766(1) of the Civil Act). However, it is reasonable to view that the victim, etc., who received the truth-finding decision from the past History Settlement Commission, was aware of the damage and the perpetrator when the truth-finding decision was made (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da4091, Apr. 26, 2012), and three years have elapsed thereafter.

On the other hand, a claim for damages against a State arising from a tort is extinguished by prescription unless it is exercised for five years from the date of such tort (Article 32 of the former Act before it was repealed by Act No. 42 of Apr. 7, 1921, and Article 82 of the former Act enacted by Act No. 217 of Sept. 24, 1951). This three years.