1. The plaintiffs' appeal and the defendant's appeal against the plaintiff A are all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne respectively by each party.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the dismissal or addition as set forth in paragraph (2) below, and thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be removed or added;

A. At the third bottom of the judgment of the first instance, the third bottom " March 31, 1987" was added to " March 13, 1987".

(b) from the fifth to the sixth second under the judgment of the court of first instance, the second to the sixth first shall be followed as follows:

The amount of consolation money to be compensated by the Defendant is 137,603,200 won (G's consolation money which includes one half of the amount of consolation money inherited by the Plaintiff A) to the Plaintiff.

) Plaintiff B’s spouse KRW 50,000,000, and KRW 20,000 for children C and D, respectively.

C. The 7th session of the first instance court’s judgment is as follows: “The result of the mental evaluation of the director of the medical hospital at the Tol University in the first instance court is also the result of the appraisal of the director of the medical hospital at the Tol University in the first instance, and the Plaintiff A was also subject to illegal confinement and cruel acts from the police investigators belonging to the Defendant. In addition, considering the results of the said mental evaluation, it is insufficient to recognize that there was a serious adviser and cruel act against Plaintiff A, as alleged by Plaintiff A, as it is based on the statement that the said mental evaluation results were based on the unlawful confinement and cruel acts.” Moreover, the statement “the eightth day multiplying the eightth day”, “after adding the results of the mental evaluation of the director of the medical hospital at the Tol University in the first instance court.”

Of the judgment of the first instance court, “4. Judgment on the defense of extinctive prescription” shall be made as follows:

A. The defendant asserts that the plaintiff A's right to claim damages has already expired five years after the expiration of the statute of limitations from March 6, 1985, which was the expiration date of illegal confinement. The plaintiff A's right to claim damages is not allowed as abuse of rights against the principle of good faith.