1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the part that became final and conclusive by the judgment of remand (Supreme Court Decision 2013Da203512 Decided March 26, 2015) is excluded.

1. The scope of the judgment in this Court rendered a claim for damages against the defendant based on a tort against the defendant. The judgment of the court of first instance accepted the plaintiffs' claim (the amount of the claim in the attached Form and the amount of the award in the first instance as stated in the "amount of the claim in the attached Form and the amount of the award in the attached Form), and the defendant filed an appeal against

The court prior to remand accepted part of the defendant's appeal, and revoked the amount stated in the "amount claimed in the attached Form and the amount of compensation for delay" in the "amount of the judgment of the court of first instance" and the "amount of compensation for delay for delay" in the attached Form No. 1, and dismissed all the plaintiffs' claims against the defendant, and only the defendant appealed against the defendant in the judgment of the court prior to remand. The Supreme Court reversed the part of the judgment of the court prior to remand and remanded it to this court.

Therefore, the part against the plaintiffs in the judgment before remanding the case was separated and finalized, and the scope of the trial after remanding the case is limited to the part against the defendant among the judgment before remanding the case (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da31706, Feb. 28, 2013). 2. The court shall explain this part of the facts premised on the premise of this case on February 28, 2013. The part of the judgment of the first instance that "the above lawsuit against the defendant is pending in the appellate court (Seoul High Court 2012Na39181, Seoul High Court 201)." The appellate court filed an appeal against the defendant on November 29, 2012. The appellate court accepted part of the defendant's appeal by the defendant, and modified the judgment of the first instance by recognizing consolation money of KRW 16,66,66, I to F, 200,000, respectively.

Accordingly, the Defendant re-appealed and filed an appeal, and the Supreme Court of Korea, on January 22, 2015, suffered by F et al. due to the Defendant’s illegal act, constitutes damages arising in relation to democratization movements as prescribed by the Act on the Restoration of Honor and Compensation to Persons Related to Democratization Movement (hereinafter “The Democratic Compensation Act”).