The judgment below

Of them, Plaintiff A. As to the claim for consolation money and the part against the rest of the plaintiffs except Plaintiff A.

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

1. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

A. In a case where a public prosecution was instituted based on evidence, etc. collected by a State agency due to an illegal act, etc. during the investigation process, and a conviction became final and conclusive, but at the latest, the existence of grounds for retrial is revealed and a judgment of innocence became final and conclusive in the retrial procedure, the obligee cannot expect that the claim for damages be filed against the State until

Therefore, it is not permissible for the state, which is the debtor, to claim the completion of extinctive prescription as an abuse of rights.

However, in such a case, barring any special circumstance, a creditor shall exercise his/her right within a six-month period equivalent to the suspension of prescription under the Civil Act from the final judgment of acquittal on which such disability was terminated, and shall be determined based on the date of filing a lawsuit claiming compensation for damages in principle as to whether the right was exercised within

However, even if a creditor did not file a claim for damages within such period, where a claim for criminal compensation under the Criminal Compensation and Restoration of Honor Act was filed, there are special circumstances to extend the "reasonable period" of the exercise of the right to prevent the defense of extinctive prescription. Thus, if a claim for damages is filed within six months from the date on which the decision on criminal compensation became final and conclusive, the right may be deemed to have been exercised within a reasonable period. However, even if such period does not exceed three years from the date on which

(Supreme Court Decision 2013Da201844 Decided December 12, 2013, and Supreme Court Decision 2013Da208326 Decided June 12, 2014, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da208326, Jun. 12,

The reasoning of the judgment of the first instance as cited by the court below and legitimate.