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 grounds for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows: the "Chairperson" of Part 9 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be written as "Chairperson of the Working Committee"; the "No. 9" shall be added to the "No. 4 of the same judgment of the court of first instance"; and the "No. 9 (including additional numbers)" shall be added to the "No. 9" shall be added to the "No. 4 of the same judgment of the court of first instance," and the "No. 3 of the judgment of the court of first instance" shall be added to the "No. 9 of the judgment of the court of first instance

(1) In light of the allegations and evidence added in the trial, the first instance court’s findings and judgments are not different. [Supplementary part] Even if it is assumed that, around March 6, 2011, the time when the Plaintiff received notification from the head of Jeju Special Self-Governing Province 43 business office of notification that the harm of the Deceased was discovered can be seen as the final time when the causes for the failure to exercise the rights objectively cease to exist, the Plaintiffs’ violation of the good faith principle or the abuse of rights cannot be accepted.

Even in cases where there exists a disability in which an obligee could not exercise his/her rights objectively against the Plaintiffs, the obligor’s defense of extinctive prescription may be avoided only within a reasonable period from the time such disability was terminated.

Here, whether there was an exercise of right within a reasonable period should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the relationship between the obligee and the obligor, and whether there were any special circumstances to delay the exercise of the obligee’s right.

However, denying the validity of the completion of extinctive prescription based on the principle of trust and good faith should be limited to only exceptional restrictions on the system of extinctive prescription, which adopts sanctions against the achievement of legal stability, the difficulty of proving, and the neglect of the exercise of rights.