1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning for the court's explanation of this case is that the plaintiffs submitted to the court for this case, and it rejected each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 38 to 40 which is insufficient to recognize the plaintiffs' claims. The court's decision of the first instance is the same as the entry of the judgment of the first instance except for the following specifications, and therefore, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination on the defendant's defense of extinctive prescription on March 3, 200

A. The defendant asserts that the plaintiffs' right to claim damages has expired by prescription.

However, the right to claim damages against the country causing a tort is extinguished by prescription unless it is exercised for five years from the date of the tort (amended by Law No. 42 of Apr. 7, 1921, and repealed by Law No. 217 of Sept. 24, 1951), and Article 32 of the former Accounting Act before it was repealed by Law No. 217 of Sep. 24, 1951), and it is apparent in the record that the plaintiffs' lawsuit of this case was filed on Jun. 27, 2014 after the lapse of five years from Feb. 10, 1951, which is the date of the tort, as such, the right to claim damages against the defendant by the plaintiffs against the defendant was extinguished by prescription.

B. 1) The plaintiffs' re-appeals against the abuse of rights were dismissed on the grounds that the extinctive prescription period has expired after claiming damages against the defendant with the same content as the claim of this case (Supreme Court Decision 2004Da33469 Decided May 29, 2008). In the Supreme Court Decision 2009Da66969 Decided May 29, 2008, the Supreme Court rejected the defendant's defense of extinctive prescription, and there was a de facto obstacle that the plaintiffs could not exercise their rights objectively until the damages are recognized, and the Supreme Court is identical to the Supreme Court Decision 2009Da72599 Decided September 8, 201, which is the date of the said decision.