1. Of the part against the plaintiff in the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the money ordered to be paid below.

Basic Facts

The reason why this Court is used in relation to this part is as stated in the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except that the phrase “Plaintiffs” in the 5th, 13, and 14th of the judgment of the first instance is applied to “Plaintiffs and the co-Plaintiffs of the first instance court,” and therefore, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

According to the above facts, the police officers belonging to the defendant murdered the deceased without due process. This constitutes a tort that infringes on the fundamental rights of the people as guaranteed by the Constitution, the right to life, and the right to trial in accordance with due process.

Meanwhile, the spouse of a lineal descendant of a victim who has lost his/her life due to another person's illegal act may claim consolation money pursuant to Articles 750 and 751 of the Civil Act by proving his/her mental suffering. In addition to the overall purport of the pleadings as to the evidence No. 3 and evidence No. 5-1, the Plaintiff may recognize the fact that the deceased's body was directly recovered on the ground that the deceased's body was killed on the ground that he/she was a member of the National Report Federation, and in light of the above facts, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff was suffering from mental suffering due to the death of the deceased.

Therefore, the defendant is obliged to compensate for mental damage suffered by the plaintiff due to the above illegal acts by public officials belonging to the defendant.

The defendant asserts that since the decision of the past company reorganization committee is based on indirect evidence and hearsay evidence, the plaintiff's claim should not be accepted based on the decision of the past company reorganization committee.

However, the following circumstances that can be recognized by compiling the above facts and the above evidence, i.e., ① the Plaintiff (the 29 years of age at that time) who was a dead S and a dead T was detained on the police on July 22, 1950, and was killed in a humous mountain on that day.