logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.06.12 2013가합544256
손해배상(기)
Text

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Reasons

Basic Facts

Plaintiff

On October 29, 1975, Plaintiff A, including the conviction of Defendant A, was arrested and detained after being arrested on the ground that “A, around 13:40 on October 29, 1975, had 55 students from E High School Class II and the second grade and second grade classes in D High School located in Seocheon-si, and had lecture subjects for organic production, and there would be a war in November 1, 199” without any grounds, “I would put a poster to Southwest, but there was a statement that I would immediately return to the Republic of Korea, but there was a fact that I would like to look back to and spread a will secret and distorted facts.” On March 12, 1976, the court of first instance (Seoul Criminal District Court Support 75Ra188) recognized the suspension of qualifications for the above facts charged by the President and the President to be subject to the Presidential Decree’s emergency measures for suspension of qualifications for the purpose of 197 and No. 2, 1976.”

(hereinafter referred to as "the subject decision for review"). While the plaintiff A appealed, the subject decision for review was finalized after the plaintiff A's appeal was dismissed on November 10, 197 from the appellate court (Seoul High Court 76No686).

On May 27, 2013, Plaintiff A, including a new judgment, filed a request for a retrial against a judgment subject to a retrial on May 27, 2013. On September 5, 2013, the Seoul High Court: (a) “Emergency Measure No. 9” violated the fundamental rights of the people guaranteed by the Constitution by excessively restricting the freedom and rights of the people beyond the limits for the purpose without satisfying the requirements for its issuance; (b) thus, it is unconstitutional and invalid as it has been in violation of the new Constitution before the Emergency Measure No. 9 was rescinded or invalidated; and (c) furthermore, in light of the current Constitution that provides for the guarantee of fundamental

arrow