1. Of the part of the lower judgment against the Defendant, the respective amount of KRW 28,00,000 against Plaintiff BG, Plaintiff GF, Plaintiff GG, and Plaintiff GH, respectively.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Examining the grounds of appeal on the recognition of the sacrifice of the victims of this case in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court was justifiable to have determined that the victims of this case constitute the victims of the so-called civilian sacrifice case on the grounds of its stated reasoning.

There is no error of exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles on evidence judgment or burden of proof without exhaust all necessary deliberations.

2. (1) As to the grounds of appeal on extinctive prescription, in a case where the State received an application for ascertaining the truth of a victim who is subject to the Framework Act on the Settlement of History for Truth and Reconciliation (hereinafter “The Act”), and concluded a truth-finding decision that confirmed or presumed as a victim by the State (hereinafter “the Committee for Settlement of History”) based on such decision, it is reasonable to deem that there are special circumstances where the victim exercises his/her right within a reasonable period of time, and at least there is a State’s trust in the fact that the State would not assert the extinction of right on the ground of the completion of extinctive prescription. Nevertheless, the State’s assertion on the completion of extinctive prescription constitutes an abuse of rights against the principle of trust and good faith, and thus, cannot

In this case, “reasonable period” in the exercise of the above rights should be limited to a short period corresponding to the suspension of prescription under the Civil Act, except in extenuating circumstances, but may be extended by up to three years where it is inevitable due to special circumstances in individual cases.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2012Da202819 Decided May 16, 2013). In addition, even if there was no application for ascertaining the truth from victims, etc., it is reasonable that the past management committee constitutes a case for ascertaining the truth as an intentional important case.