Of the part against the plaintiffs in the judgment of the court below, the "Plaintiff" in the attached Table 2 of the amount of appeal shall be respectively stated.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Defendant’s ground of appeal

A. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the court below acknowledged the fact that all the plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as the "victims of this case") suffered Hansen's disease disease patients except net CV, AB, EN, F, and GO, and their lawsuits, and the defendant was hospitalized in the National Cemetery, Busan Family Hospital, the National Ilsan Hospital, the National Ilsan Hospital, the Dolsan National Institute, the Dolsan National Institute, the Bolsan National Institute, the Bolsan National Institute, etc. (hereinafter referred to as the "National Donsan Hospital, etc."), and was hospitalized in the articles of incorporation or abortion surgery from around 1947 to 1986 by its affiliated doctors, nurses, etc. or medical assistants, etc.

In addition, based on the facts stated in its reasoning, the lower court acknowledged the Defendant’s State liability against the victims of this case on the ground that: (a) not only the Defendant’s child-related policy on the restriction of human rights by Hansen’s disease, the articles of association, and the surgery on pregnancy were not based on the legal basis; (b) not only did the appropriate means but also did not have the minimum degree of damage; and (c) violated the human rights, equality rights, right to self-determination, the right not to be damaged; and (d) the right not to privacy and the right to pursue happiness; and (e) even if the person affected’s Hansen’s disease was under a net order without any particular resistance, it is difficult to deem

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower judgment did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the requirements for establishing State liability, or by misapprehending the legal principles due to insufficient deliberation, etc.

(b).