beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the part between the Plaintiff Q, AR, AS, ATS, AU, AV, AW, AX, and B and the Defendant shall be modified as follows.
Reasons
basic facts;
2. The grounds for this Court’s assertion in this part are as follows: Plaintiff A Q, the heir of the victim’s net BI, and Plaintiff BC’s heir of the net BL, the heir of the victim’s net BL.
1. In addition to the corresponding parts of the list of inheritance relations and the calculation details of consolation money claims, it is identical to the corresponding parts of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it shall be quoted as it is by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act
3. In a lawsuit claiming compensation based on the occurrence and scope of liability for damages and the determination of the Committee on the Settlement of History, the mere fact that the method of deliberation in the lawsuit claiming compensation was a determination or determination on the confirmation or presumption of victims of the past History Settlement Commission does not have to examine the relevance, credibility, etc. of the grounds for recognition, and the fact that a person is a victim by the military or the police or the State without any room to dispute the fact that he/she is a victim.
The court shall conduct the fact-finding through the necessary review and examination of evidence on the credibility of the original data which served as the basis of the past history adjustment committee.
(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2012Da202819 Decided May 16, 2013: Provided, That considering the fact that the Criminal Procedure Commission, an agency with considerable investigative authority, conducted an investigation and deliberated in accordance with the criteria set by the Criminal Procedure Commission, issued a decision of confirmation or presumption of victims or presumption, and the fact that there were many people who have observed or known the situation after the lapse of three years from the time of the occurrence of the subject case, and that the objective evidence such as the document, etc. is not easy for the general public to access evidence due to a sudden accident on the part of the defendant, who is the perpetrator, the document of fact-finding, etc., it is not strictly required to access evidence.
On the facts of sacrifice of the deceased.