2014Da220385 Compensation (as stated)

As shown in the List of Plaintiffs in the attached Table.

Korea

Seoul High Court Decision 2012Na105460 Decided July 10, 2014

August 29, 2016

Of the part of the judgment below against the defendant, the part of the case against the plaintiff A, B, C, and the part against the plaintiff D, E, F, and G, shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be remanded to the Seoul High Court.

All remaining appeals by the defendant are dismissed.

Of the costs of appeal, the costs of appeal against the plaintiffs other than E, F, and G, which are the taking-off of the lawsuit of plaintiffs A, B, C, and deceased Network D, are assessed against the defendant.

Of the separate list of the plaintiffs in the judgment of the court below, "A. B. H., "B.", "B.", "C. H., "C. L. H.," "C. H. 104, 308, Ga, No. 195 net P. A. Q. "A. P.R.," and "B.", "B.", "B.", "B., "B.," and "B. Q.," respectively.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

A. According to the reasoning of the first instance judgment as cited by the court below, the court below acknowledged the following facts based on the adopted evidence: (a) the court below accepted an application for the truth-finding on the case of the civilian sacrifice of the mines in Busan Cunch; (b) the case of the sacrifice of the civilian prisoners in Daegu Cunt; and (c) conducted an on-site investigation; and (d) conducted an on-site investigation, etc. of the victims of this case from March 16, 2009 to November 17, 2010; and (e) confirmed the fact that the victims of this case were victims related to the case of the civilian sacrifice of the North Cunt Mine; and (e) determined that the victims of this case constituted the sacrifice of the North Cunt mine in Busan Cunt; (e) the case of the sacrifice of the civilian prisoners in Daegu and Gyeongbuk-do; and (e) based on the evidence recognized by the evidence.

B. However, it is difficult to accept the judgment of the court below on the part of the victim S for the following reasons.

Plaintiff B claimed that the name of the attached LS was T, and that the LS died on July 1950 as the sacrifice case for the prisoner in Daegu-Seoul-Gyeongbuk-do prison. According to the duly admitted evidence, T is recorded in the list of inmates in the Daegu-gu prison, and T exists in the list of military police officers of the military police unit in the 1957. Each certified copy of the register, the above deceased reported the inheritance of Australia on April 25, 1957, and UC was produced only on April 3, 1966, and only on April 3, 1994, the fact that the former certified copy was written as T is written only in the column for the colon of Plaintiff B, among the previous certified copies, and the fact that T is written in the list after the former certified copy.

On the basis of the above facts, even if considering the special circumstances where the report on various status relations or the entry of the public register was inaccurate at the time of the Korean War and immediately following the Korean War, it is an exceptional situation where the report of the deceased was made without simply making the death report delayed after several years of death from the death of the deceased, and the reason and circumstance where the report of the deceased’s birth was made on the deceased’s father and the report of the birth on his father’s father was not clear. In addition, at the time of the time of the Korean War, the deceased did not appear on the part of the deceased’s parents and wife, and the two children, and the mother did not fully mention the fact that the deceased was dead at the time of the Korean War, and C was married in 1962 and in 197 and delivered in 197 and delivered in 198, the report of the birth was made at the latest. In light of the fact that each of the above children was born at the time of the birth report.

On the other hand, in addition to the above statements in B, W made a statement that T was working in the Daegu District Office at the time of the previous committee for the committee of the previous company that supported the above deceased's sacrifice, but T does not include the content that T is the same person as S.

As above, as long as there are many doubtful circumstances as to whether or not the deceased died at the time of July 1950, it is insufficient to view that the fact of sacrifice was sufficiently proven by the deceased S as a sacrifice case of Daegu-gu and Gyeongbuk-do W, solely on the basis of the past investigation report, the truth-finding decision, and the statement of the plaintiff B and W cited by the court below.

Therefore, the court below should have judged whether the deceased S actually was a victim of the case of sacrifice of the Defendant in Daegu-Gyeong-Gyeongbuk-do, the reason or circumstance leading up to the deceased’s death, whether the Plaintiff C was born at the time of July 1950, whether the deceased’s death report was made after about 40 years from the deceased’s death, how the deceased’s death report was made after about 40 years from the deceased’s death, and whether T was the same as S by exercising the right to ask for an additional evidence as to the circumstances indicated in this “T” and whether T was the same as the deceased’s death.

Nevertheless, solely for the reasons indicated in its holding, the court below erred by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations or exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and thus, the ground of appeal on this part is with merit.

C. As to the remaining victims, the date of the deceased's death report was not around July 1950, but was reported to be born between around 1951 and around 1954. However, this does not constitute an ethic case in light of the special circumstances where the report on various status relations or the entry of the public records was inaccurate at the time of the Korean War and immediately thereafter, and thus, it does not readily deny the probative value of the past investigation report or the investigation report of the past history committee, and further, in light of the contents such as the fact-finding report and the statement statement of the past history committee containing each applicant or witness's statement, the court below's decision that recognized the rest of victims except the above S as victims, such as the civilian sacrifice case of the Gyeongnam-gu, Daegu-do, and the case of sacrifice of the defendant in the North Korean Unified District, etc., and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the burden of proof, the principle of free evaluation of evidence or the principle of free evaluation of evidence.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

The lower court determined that the Defendant’s defense of extinctive prescription could be deemed to have been exercised within a considerable period of time, as the bereaved families of the victims of this case filed a lawsuit for damages of this case after the lapse of approximately two years and six months from March 16, 2009, the date of the fact-finding decision, which was the highest date of the truth-finding decision.

In light of the relevant legal principles, such determination by the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors of misapprehending the legal principles on cases where extinctive prescription defense constitutes abuse

3. As to the ground of appeal No. 3, this part of the ground of appeal is obvious that the defendant did not appear to have asserted in the original judgment for a new reason that was raised only in the final appeal, which cannot be a legitimate ground of appeal against the original judgment

4. Conclusion

Of the part against the defendant in the judgment of the court below, the part against the defendant regarding the plaintiff Gap, Eul, Eul, and Eul, which are the parties to the lawsuit of the plaintiff Gap, Eul, Eul, and Eul, are reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. The defendant's remaining appeals are all dismissed. The costs of appeal against the plaintiffs except the plaintiffs E, F, and Eul, which are the parties to the lawsuit of the plaintiff Eul, Eul, Eul, and Dong D, among the costs of appeal, shall be borne by the losing party. The costs of appeal against the plaintiffs shall be assessed against the defendant. The correction shall be made due to obvious errors in the plaintiff's list

Justices Lee In-bok

Justices Kim Yong-deok

Justices Kim So-young

Justices Lee Dong-won

A person shall be appointed.