1. Of the judgment of the first instance court, the part against the plaintiffs other than plaintiffs V, W, X is modified as follows.

1. The grounds for the court’s explanation on this part of the underlying facts and the occurrence of liability for damages are as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the court of first instance “the Committee on Truth and Reconciliation” (hereinafter “the Committee on Truth and Reconciliation”) is deemed as “the “the Committee on Audit and Reconciliation”)” (hereinafter “the Committee”), and therefore, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the

2. Judgment on the defendant's defense of extinctive prescription

A. The Defendant asserted that the Defendant could exercise his right to claim damages against the Defendant from around June 14, 1983, which was the date of prosecution against the Defendants, or from around 2008 when the 2008 Review Committee rendered a truth-finding decision, and thus, the Plaintiffs’ claim for damages had 5 years or 3 years expired before the filing of the instant lawsuit, and even if there were objective grounds for the Plaintiffs to exercise their right to claim State damages against the Defendant, the Plaintiffs shall exercise their right within a reasonable period under the good faith principle from the time when such grounds were eliminated in order to prevent the Plaintiffs from exercising their right to claim for the completion of the statute of limitations. The Plaintiffs filed the instant lawsuit at the point of time when 1 year and 5 months or more from the date when the judgment of innocence was rendered at the time when the aforementioned objective grounds were eliminated. As such, the Defendant’s

The plaintiffs asserted that the defendant's defense of extinctive prescription is not allowed because it constitutes an abuse of rights against the principle of good faith.

B. Determination 1) Claim for damages against a State arising from a tort is extinguished by prescription if it is not exercised for five years from the date of the tort (see Article 96 of the National Finance Act and Supreme Court Decision 2004Da33469, May 29, 2008). This is immediately proceeding from the date of the tort. Thus, the Framework Act on the Settlement of History for Truth and Reconciliation (hereinafter referred to as the “Framework Act”).