Of the part of the lower judgment against the Defendant, the part regarding ST, SU, and SV, which is the lawsuit taking place by Plaintiff PZ, QA, QC, and Plaintiff Net QB.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

A. According to the reasoning of the court of first instance cited by the court below, the court below acknowledged the fact that the committee for reorganization of the past history for the truth and reconciliation established pursuant to the Framework Act on the Settlement of History for the Truth and Reconciliation (hereinafter “the committee for resolution of the past history”) received an application for the truth-finding as to the civilian sacrifice case of the Gyeongnam Mine in Daegu and North Korea, the case of sacrifice of the Gyeongnam Mine in Daegu, and the case of sacrifice of the Gyeongbuk-do and the relevant witness, and conducted on-site investigations as a result of conducting on-site investigations. The court below found the fact that the victims of this case were victims of this case related to the sacrifice case of the civilian sacrifice case of the Gyeongnam High in Daegu and North Korea, the case of sacrifice of the Gyeongnam High Military in Daegu, and the case of sacrifice of the Gyeongbuk-do and the case of sacrifice of the Gyeong High Military in Korea, based on evidence admitted as the victim. The victim of this case is the victim of this case.

B. However, it is difficult to accept the judgment of the lower court on the part of the Victim SF for the following reasons.

Plaintiff

The QA claimed that the name of the referred net SF was A CD, and the net SF died on or around July 1950 as the sacrifice case of the inmates in Daegu-Gyeong-Gyeongbuk-do prison. According to the duly admitted evidence, A CD is recorded in the list of inmates in Daegu-gu prison, and there is A CD in the list of military police carriers in the military police unit in the 1957 newspaper. Each of the multiple copies of the above deceased was reported on the inheritance of Australia on April 25, 1957. On February 19, 1966, the above deceased QC was produced, and on April 3, 1994, the fact that the former report was made and was written as deceased on April 3, 1994, and the fact that the former copies were written as the former copies only in QB column of the Plaintiff QA’s birth.

A. Factual basis