1. The defendant,

A. The plaintiff A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, H, J, K, L, M, M, N,O, P, Q, Q, Q, U, M, V, X, Y.

Basic Facts

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the whole pleadings in each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 22, and evidence No. 52 through 56.

The plaintiffs in the status of the victims of this case are relatives of AB missing at the time of 625, the deceased AC is the wife of AB, the plaintiff and the plaintiff AA are children of AB, the net AD is the dynamics of the deceased, the wife of the deceased R, the plaintiff H is the agent of the AB, the plaintiff H is the dynamics of AB, the plaintiff I, and the plaintiff Y is the Dongs of the deceased AC.

(2) On March 8, 1981, the employee of the National Security Planning Department (hereinafter “The instant victims”) who was performing the duties of judicial police officers (hereinafter “the instant case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case

During the above period, the Sheshed’s employees forced the victims of this case to make a confession that AB left North Korea as a member of the North Korean Government, and that they engaged in a counter-espionage activity. They continued to hold a monet and drinking, etc. with the monet and drinking out of the clothes, and continued to hold the monet after cutting off the clothes, the method of brusheing the water, and the method of avoiding the brut with the sexual flag and conspiracy. Of the victims of this case, the victims of this case led to a false confession of the suspected facts, such as a phC, the Plaintiff A, AAD, the net AD, and Plaintiff H (hereinafter “the Defendants of this case”).

Referencely, the Defendants were investigated by the prosecutor in charge more than 10 days after they were sent to the Seoul detention center in accordance with the issuance of the warrant of detention. The prosecutor in charge argued that the Defendants were subject to adviser, etc. from the Ansan’s employees, but the Defendants were silent and investigated.