1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant shall be revoked, and all the plaintiffs' claims corresponding to the revoked part shall be revoked.

1. The reasoning for this part of this Court’s explanation is as stated in Paragraph 1 of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, and this part of this Court’s reasoning is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the same Act.

2. Whether liability for damages arises;

A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the investigator of the Busan City Police Bureau, who is a public official belonging to the defendant, illegally arrests the deceased D without a detention warrant after illegally arrests the deceased D without undergoing due process necessary for the arrest or investigation, and receiving false confession by committing harsh acts, such as adviser, during the investigation process, and eventually, he was sentenced to a judgment of conviction of five years of suspension of execution and suspension of qualification for 15 years, which are the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution, and the right to a trial according to due process was infringed upon. Accordingly, it is obvious in light of the empirical rule that the plaintiffs who are the deceased D and their bereaved family members suffered mental suffering. Thus, the defendant is obliged to compensate for the loss of mental harm suffered by the deceased D and their bereaved family members due to unlawful execution of duties by the public official belonging to the defendant, unless there are special circumstances.

B. 1) The Defendant’s defense of extinctive prescription defense 1) defense that the Defendant extinguished the extinctive prescription period. As such, the right to claim damages caused by tort against the State ceases to exist unless the Defendant exercised it for three years from the date the victim became aware of the damage and the perpetrator, or for five years from the date of tort. According to the above facts of recognition, it is evident in the record that the Plaintiff’s lawsuit of this case was filed on December 27, 201 when five years have elapsed since 1980, and barring any special circumstance, barring any special circumstance, the right to claim damages by the Plaintiffs expired. 2) The Plaintiffs’ interruption of extinctive prescription period constitutes a criminal claim.