1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 10,00,00 for each of the KRW 41,430,400 for Plaintiff A, and KRW 10,000 for Plaintiff C, D, and E, and each of them on April 12, 2017.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 24, 1974, the judgment of conviction against Plaintiff A (former B prior to the opening of the name) was handed down on the charge of violating the National Security Act and violating the Anti-Public Law, such as the attached facts charged, and the Seoul District Criminal Court (Seoul District Court 74Da160, 175, 181, 196, 196, 196, 1 year of imprisonment, 3 years of suspended execution, and one year of suspension of qualification was imposed on Plaintiff A.

[2] The judgment of Seoul Criminal Court 74 Gohap160, 175 (Joint), 181 (Joint), and 196 (Joint) (hereinafter referred to as the "instant judgment subject to a retrial"). B.

Plaintiff

A The plaintiff alleged that the plaintiff A was detained on February 3, 1974 by the Central Information Department investigator belonging to the defendant on February 20, 1974 without a warrant, but the plaintiff A was detained on February 3, 1974. However, there is no evidence to prove such fact, it is recognized that the plaintiff A was detained on February 20, 1974, as stated in the decision of this court 2013 Inventory 21.

On February 21, 1974, the next day was released on February 21, 1974 (2 days of detention), and on March 21, 1974, the second day was detained, and was released on July 24, 1974 according to the instant judgment subject to a retrial (126 days of detention), and was detained for a total of 128 days in relation to this case.

C. Plaintiff A filed a petition for a retrial on the instant judgment subject to a retrial with Seoul Central District Court 2013 Inventory 21. On August 16, 2013, the said court rendered a decision to commence a retrial on the instant judgment subject to a retrial, deeming that there were grounds for retrial prescribed in Articles 420 subparag. 7 and 422 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and rendered a decision to commence a retrial on the instant judgment subject to a retrial. (2) After the said court rendered a decision to commence a retrial on July 24, 2014 on the grounds that the statements and legal statements made by Co-Defendant A and F et al. in the investigation agency, including Plaintiff A, were made in a state of illegal arrest, illegal confinement, assault or intimidation by investigators, and mental pressure by adviser, and thus, the voluntariness cannot be recognized (hereinafter “instant new judgment”).