All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The court shall determine whether the assertion of facts is true in accordance with logical and empirical rules, based on the principle of social justice and equity, with a free evaluation of evidence, taking into account the purport of the entire pleadings and the result of the examination of evidence (Article 202 of the Civil Procedure Act). The facts duly confirmed by the court of final appeal that the original judgment does not exceed the bounds of

(1) Article 432 of the same Act provides for the following reasons: (1) The lower court did not accept the Plaintiffs’ claim for tort liability regarding the presidential Emergency Measure No. 9 and the investigative judgment No. 9; and (2) in the investigation process of the instant case, individual tort such as the recognition of the lower court is recognized; (3) there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge tort due to individual tort or illegal confinement after release; (4) the statute of limitations expired; and the Defendant’s defense of extinctive prescription does not constitute abuse of rights; and (3) the lower court rejected all of the Plaintiffs’ claim.

The part of the ground of appeal disputing the fact-finding, which is the basis of the judgment of the court of fact-finding, is merely an error of the judgment of the court of fact-finding on the selection and probative value of evidence.

In addition, even if examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal principles, the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the presidential emergency measure No. 9 and the illegal act under Article 2(1) of the State Compensation Act, the public official’s intentional act or negligence under Article 2(1) of the State Compensation Act, and the abuse of rights against the defense of extinctive prescription, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations

Supreme Court Decision 200