All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant (defendant).

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1.(a)

Article 8 of the State Compensation Act, Articles 166(1) and 766(1) and (2) of the Civil Act, Article 96(2) and (1) of the National Finance Act / [The former Budget and Accounts Act (wholly amended by Act No. 4102, Mar. 31, 1989; repealed by Act No. 8050, Oct. 4, 2006; hereinafter the same shall apply)

According to Article 96(2) and (1) of the Act, with respect to the right to claim State compensation, five-year extinctive prescription is applicable from the date when the injured party or his/her legal representative becomes aware of such damages and the perpetrator (subjective starting point of counting under Articles 166(1) and 766(1) of the Civil Act) (subject to Articles 166(1) and 766(2) of the Civil Act).

On August 30, 2018, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that Article 2(1)3 of the Framework Act on the Settlement of History for the Truth and Reconciliation (hereinafter “The Act”) and Article 2(1)4 of the same Act that Article 166(2) of the Civil Act applied to “the case of mass sacrifice of a private person” and “the case of cruel manipulation of serious human rights violations” under Article 2(1)3 of the same Act are unconstitutional.

(The Constitutional Court Order 2014HunBa148 et al. (hereinafter “instant decision of unconstitutionality”). (B)

The effect of the decision of unconstitutionality of the Constitutional Court does not include the case in which the Constitutional Court made a request for adjudication of unconstitutionality as well as the case in which the Constitutional Court made a request for adjudication of unconstitutionality, or where the request for adjudication of unconstitutionality is made in a court before it made a decision of unconstitutionality, but it does not include any application for adjudication of unconstitutionality in addition to the case in which the relevant law or the provisions of the law are the premise of judgment and continue to the court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Nu1462, Feb. 14, 1992; 96Nu1627, Apr. 26, 1996). Accordingly, in a case where the effect of the decision of unconstitutionality of this case is effective, it is important that the "nongovernmental group sacrifice case" under Article 2 (1) 3 of the previous Reorganization Act or the "case