1. The plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed.

2. The appeal costs are assessed against the plaintiffs.

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

1. The reasoning of this part of the judgment of the court is as stated in the "1. Basic Facts" and "2. The plaintiffs' assertion" among the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance.

(main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act). 2. Determination

A. According to the above facts finding that liability for damages occurred, a security investigator belonging to the defendant did not comply with due process under the Constitution and the Criminal Procedure Act while arresting and detaining D, and did not comply with the due process under the Constitution and the Criminal Procedure Act, and committed an adviser, violence, or intimidation for political purposes. As a result, D who did not have any fear and fear of fear and fear was subject to a written application for discharge from active service against his will, and accordingly, it was subject

Unless there are special circumstances, the defendant is liable for compensating for damages suffered by the plaintiffs who are families of D pursuant to Article 2(1) of the State Compensation Act, as it constitutes intentional tort committed with the appearance of performing duties, which is an investigation.

B. (1) The main point of the parties’ assertion regarding the Defendant’s defense for the completion of extinctive prescription is that: (a) the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking damages against the Defendant, such as the investigator’s adviser, but the judgment was ruled against the Defendant; and (b) the said judgment became final and conclusive; and (c) the short-term extinctive prescription period has expired at the latest after three years lapse from July 3, 2013

With regard to this, the plaintiffs should be deemed to have a disability that prevents them from exercising their rights objectively until the judgment confirming invalidity of the discharge order against D becomes final and conclusive, and ② even if not, it is not so.

The defendant's assertion of extinctive prescription is against the principle of good faith, as it is considerably unfair or unfair for other creditors to refuse the performance of obligation on the grounds that there is a lot of need to protect creditors and other circumstances such as receiving the repayment of obligation.