beta
Text
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.
Purport of claim and appeal
1.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows: "Nos. 10 (Plaintiff E's written statement)" in Section 10 of the first instance court's 10th judgment is used as "Nos. 8 (Plaintiff E's school register), A's 9 (Plaintiff E's military register certificate), and A's 10th (Plaintiff E's written statement)"; with respect to the plaintiffs' assertion, the following judgment is identical to the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except for supplement to the corresponding part, and thus, it is acceptable as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Supplementary judgment
A. The plaintiffs' act of issuing Emergency Decree No. 9 of the President's assertion constitutes a tort under Article 2 (1) of the State Compensation Act, which is a duty contrary to the Act and subordinate statutes. The acts of issuing Emergency Decree No. 9 of the President's Emergency Decree, investigation by investigation agencies, judge's trial acts constitutes a series of general tort following the
Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay consolation money to the plaintiffs A, E, and their families, as stated in the attached claim amount.
B. 1) First, we examine whether the presidential Emergency Measure No. 9 constitutes a tort by a public official’s intentional or negligent act as referred to in Article 2(1) of the State Compensation Act. Inasmuch as the Emergency Measure No. 9 violated the fundamental rights of the people guaranteed by the Constitution by excessively restricting the freedom and rights of the people beyond the limits for the purpose of its issuance without satisfying the requirements for its issuance, prior to the cancellation or invalidation of Emergency Measure No. 9, it is unconstitutional and invalid as it is in violation of the new Constitution, and further, it is unconstitutional in light of the current Constitution that has the provision on the guarantee of fundamental rights infringed by Emergency Measure No. 9 (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2010Do5986, Dec. 16, 2010; Supreme Court en banc Decision 2011Hu689, Apr. 18, 2013. However, Emergency Measure No. 9 is ex post facto.