1. The plaintiff E shall be dismissed.

2. The claims of the Plaintiff A, B, C, D, F, G, H, I, and J are all dismissed.

3. The costs of the lawsuit.

1. The following facts of basic facts may be acknowledged either in dispute between the parties or in combination with the whole purport of the pleadings as set out in Gap evidence 1 to 5 (including paper numbers):

Plaintiff

A-related facts 1) The facts charged that Plaintiff A violated the Presidential Emergency Decree for the National Security and the Protection of Public Order (hereinafter “Emergency Decree No. 9”) were indicted under the Jeonju District Court 79Da131, Dec. 8, 1979, and was acquitted on December 14, 1979 on the ground that the Emergency Decree No. 9 was released under the Presidential Notice No. 67 on December 8, 1979 and the sentence was abolished. Plaintiff A was detained under the detention warrant on August 16, 1979, and was released on bail for 107 days on November 30, 1979.2) The Plaintiff B’s wife, Plaintiff C, and Plaintiff D were children of Plaintiff A.

B. Plaintiff E-related facts 1) was charged with violating Emergency Measure No. 9, and was sentenced to one year of imprisonment with prison labor and one year of suspension of qualification on November 18, 1975. The appellate court was sentenced to two years of suspension of one year of imprisonment with prison labor on March 4, 1976 and one year of suspension of qualification on March 4, 1976. The judgment became final and conclusive around that time. Plaintiff E was detained by the detention warrant on June 13, 1975, and was released by the suspended sentence on March 4, 1976. Plaintiff E was released by the suspended sentence on March 4, 1976. Plaintiff E’s father, Plaintiff F’s mother, Plaintiff E, Plaintiff G, H, and Plaintiff J’s sibling.

K died on April 17, 2013, before the instant lawsuit was filed.

2. Plaintiffs A and E, who caused the Plaintiffs’ claims, were detained for a long time on charges of violating Emergency Decree No. 9, without a warrant, and the Plaintiff A received an inspection even after the trial.

However, the above emergency measures are null and void, and the public officials belonging to the defendant did not present arrest warrant and did not notify the right to refuse arrest, to make statements, and to appoint a defense counsel.