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 fact that there is no dispute, ① the deceased F (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) was killed on August 25, 2015 due to the unification of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul, Eunpyeong-gu, Seoul, on August 25, 2015, by the police officer G, who was serving together in the police station G, who was working together in the 1077 G, due to the unification of Eunpyeong-gu.

② The father of the deceased, the mother of the deceased, the Plaintiff B, the mother of the deceased, the Plaintiff C, the Plaintiff D’s outer money of the deceased, and the Plaintiff E’s outer money of the deceased.

(3) The Deceased was recognized as a person of distinguished service to the State under the Act on Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons of Distinguished Service.

④ On September 2, 2015, Plaintiff A received death benefit amounting to KRW 113,867,670 on behalf of his/her bereaved family members from the Ministry of Patriots and Veterans Affairs of Seoul Northern District on September 2, 2015, and thereafter receive approximately KRW 1.2 million compensation every month.

2. The plaintiffs' assertion ① Article 29(2) of the Constitution merely limits the claims of the State for damages suffered by the deceased and does not limit the family members' separate damages. Thus, the defendant is liable to compensate for mental damage suffered by the deceased's death, and the amount is the same as the written claim.

(2) In addition, the bereaved family whose exercise of the right to claim damages is restricted pursuant to the proviso to Article 2(1) of the State Compensation Act refers only to the "bereaved family entitled to compensation under other Acts and subordinate statutes" and cannot include "other bereaved family members entitled to compensation".

3. The judgment of this Court

A. The Constitutional Court Decision 2013Hun-Ba22, 2015Hun-Ba147 (merged) Decided May 31, 2018 on whether the proviso of Article 2(1) of the State Compensation Act is unconstitutional or not is based on Article 29(2) of the Constitution and the proviso of Article 2(1) of the State Compensation Act, and “The legislative theory is that the State’s right to claim compensation under Article 29(1) of the Constitution is a fundamental right that can be enjoyed by all the damaged people and does not discriminate depending on their status. The above provision of the Constitution also discriminates against the general public who are narrow to the general public.