[Attachment 1] List of Plaintiffs (Law Firm Young-soo, Attorneys Kim-type et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Republic of Korea (Government Law Firm Corporation, Attorneys Choi Jae-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

September 12, 2013

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs the amount of money stated in the attached Table 2. The amount of money, 5% per annum from September 12, 2013 to October 31, 2013, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. Each of the plaintiffs' remaining claims is dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, 2/5 are assessed against the Plaintiffs, and the remainder are assessed against the Defendant.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs 5% interest per annum from October 1, 1950 to the service date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

A. Circumstances and nature of formation of the National ○○○ Federation

1) The National ○○○ Federation was an organization established by the Government of the Republic of Korea for the diversity of senior citizens and for the management and control of senior citizens. In fact, although the president of the National ○○ Federation claimed to be an organization of senior citizens composed of senior citizens, the president of the National ○○ Federation was the Minister of Home Affairs, the Minister of Justice and the Minister of National Defense, the guidance chairperson of the Ministry of Justice and the police officers, and the prosecutor’s office and the police officers managed the organization.

2) On April 15, 1949, a committee for preparing the establishment of the National ○○ Cooperative was organized, and on April 20, 1949, the establishment of the National ○○ Cooperative was achieved at the meeting of the Seoul National Police Office, and on June 3, 1949, the National ○○ Cooperative reinforcement Council was established and organized, and the organization was completed on June 3, 1949, and the National ○○○ Cooperative Central Headquarters Declaration was held at the Seoul Mission on June 5, 1949.

3) After the central headquarters of the above national ○○○ Federation was organized and promulgated, from the date of January 1, 1950 to the date the subordinate organization of the Seoul ○○○ Federation was completed, most of Si/Gun ○○○ Federation was formed by February 1, 1950, and some of Si/Gun ○○○ Federation and Eup/Myeon branches continued to have been formed immediately before the Korean War. On November 1, 1949, the ○○○ Federation of Gyeongbuk-do began its activities after having the awareness of being declared by the ○○○○○○○○○○○○ Association and the Young-Gun ○○○○○○○○○○○○○ Association all of which were created on or before February 13, 1950.

4) The Central Headquarters of the National ○○○ Federation recommended the members of the Do Council in Seoul Special Metropolitan City or the members of the Do Council, thereby joining the National ○○○ Federation. As regards the general public who were irrelevant to the Do Council or the Do Council members of the Do Council or the Do Council, the National ○○○○○ Federation was forced to join the National ○○○ Federation if they are in a pro rata relationship with the police or the members of the Korean People’s Association, and made a list of the members of the ○○○○ Federation.

(b) The outbreak of Korean War and preliminary autopsy;

As the Korean War occurred on June 25, 1950, the Ministry of Home Affairs issued an urgent order to the Director-General of the National Police Bureau of each Do with the same day, "the control of the national emergency inspector and the security of the national prison charge" with the aim of strengthening the cost of punishment. On June 29, 1950, 1950, "the arrest of ○○○ Federation and other non-defensored persons, and the release is prohibited until the main order is issued." From June 29, 1950 to June 29, 1950, the Ministry of National Security and Security had conducted preliminary inspections with respect to the ○○○○ and other non-defensors throughout the country."

C. In the event of a civilian sacrifice case in the ▽▽▽;

1) 위 예비검속 지시에 따라 경북경찰국 및 그 관할에 있는 ▽▽경찰서의 경찰관, 군인 등(이하 ‘▽▽ 경찰 등’이라 한다)은 1950. 6. 29.부터 1950. 8. 26.까지 ▽▽시 지역 민간인 중 위 ○○연맹원 명부에 등재된 ○○연맹원, 예비검속된 좌익인사들, 또는 이를 의심받는 사람들(이하 ‘○○연맹원 등’이라 한다)을 ○○연맹 가입 또는 좌익활동 등의 이유로 적법한 절차를 거치지 않은 채 ▽▽경찰서, ◎◎◎지서, ◁◁지서, 장기지서 등으로 연행하거나 소집하였다. 위와 같이 연행 또는 소집된 사람들은 하루에서 한 달여까지 구금되었다. 그 후 ▽▽ 경찰 등은 상부의 지시를 받아 적법한 절차 없이 ○○연맹원 등을 처형하기로 결정하고, 1950. 7.경부터 1950. 9.경까지 ▽▽시 지역 민간인들(200명 정도로 추산된다)을 재판절차 등을 거치지 않고 집단으로 살해하였다(이하 ‘▽▽ 민간인 희생사건’이라 한다).

2) Of the deceased persons at this time, the deceased Nonparty 3 (the No. 1, hereinafter referred to as the “victim No. 1”) included the deceased Nonparty 4, Nonparty 5, Nonparty 6, Nonparty 7, Nonparty 8, Nonparty 9, Nonparty 10, Nonparty 11, Nonparty 12, Nonparty 13, Nonparty 14, Nonparty 15, Nonparty 16, Nonparty 17, Nonparty 18, Nonparty 19, Nonparty 20, Nonparty 21, Nonparty 22, Nonparty 23, Nonparty 24, Nonparty 25, Nonparty 26, Nonparty 27, Nonparty 28, Nonparty 29, Nonparty 30, Nonparty 31, Nonparty 32, Nonparty 33, Nonparty 34, Nonparty 35, Nonparty 36, Nonparty 37, and Nonparty 38 (hereinafter referred to as the “sacratum et al.”).

(d)decision-making by the Korean Film Settlement Commission for truth and reconciliation;

On October 6, 2009, the Commission for the Settlement of History established pursuant to the Framework Act on the Settlement of History for the Truth and Reconciliation (hereinafter “The Commission for the Settlement of History”) received an application to verify the truth regarding the case of sacrifice by civilians and made an investigation into the said case. On October 6, 2009, on 166 civilians including 36 victims (as to the victims Nos. 1 through 20 among them, the Commission for the Settlement of History started an ex officio investigation without filing an application to ascertain the truth, and as to the victims Nos. 21 through 36, the Commission for the Settlement of History, without filing an application to ascertain the truth, started an investigation).

(e) Family and inheritance relations; and

The Plaintiffs are the successors of the victims’ families and their families, as indicated in the attached Table 2. List “Relationship”. Meanwhile, the inheritance relationship of the right to claim damages following the death of the victims of this case and their families is as listed in the attached Table 4. The inheritance relationship between the victims of this case and their families is as shown in the inheritance shares list.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's statements in Gap's 1, 3 through 44 (including a provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the defendant's main defense

The defendant defense that the plaintiffs' lawsuit of this case was instituted by the attorney who did not legally grant the plaintiffs' power of attorney. However, there are no circumstances to doubt that the delegation of the plaintiffs' lawsuit submitted in this case was forged or otherwise not duly constituted. The plaintiffs' attorney is most party to the case, and the plaintiffs' attorney submitted most copies of identification cards to explain the fact that the delegation of the plaintiffs' power of attorney was granted (including all copies of identification cards of the plaintiffs except for plaintiffs 16, 68, 100, 123, 124, and 145 among the 150 plaintiffs). The plaintiffs' attorney can be deemed to have granted legitimate power of attorney from the plaintiffs. The defendant's defense is without merit.

3. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Summary of the parties' assertion

The plaintiffs asserts that the defendant should compensate for the damages caused by mental harm to his/her bereaved family members, as a supervisor of the ▽▽▽△△ Police, etc. who illegally killed the deceased in the ▽▽▽ Nuclear sacrifice case.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that it is unfair to recognize the deceased as the victims of the ▽△ Civilian sacrifice incident only by the result of the investigation of the past history adjustment committee consisting of indirect or hearsay evidence for the purpose of liquidation of past history.

B. Whether the deceased constitutes a victim of the ▽▽▽ Civilian sacrifice incident

1) The mere fact that a decision of the past History Settlement Commission on the confirmation or presumption of victims was rendered, without examining the relevance, credibility, etc. of the basis for recognition, is finalized without room for a dispute over the fact that all the victims were victims by the military, the police, etc., and thus, the State’s tort liability cannot be deemed as necessarily recognized. However, the investigation report by the past History Settlement Commission constitutes a flexible evidence in a civil lawsuit claiming damages against the State (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da202819, May 16, 2013).

2) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, in light of the following circumstances and facts, the instant case can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the following facts and the purport of the entire pleadings in the Health Team, the aforementioned evidence, and evidence Nos. 1, 45, and 114, the victims of the instant case may be recognized as the victims of the ▽▽▽△ Civilian sacrifice case.

A) The investigation of the past history planning committee on the case of sacrifice by civilians was conducted in full view of the literature, such as “the fact-finding report on the case of murder by the North Korean defectors,” published by the fourth National Assembly, which is a relatively objective evidence, “the fact-finding report on the case of murder by the North Korean defectors,” “the report on the activity report on the special committee on the fact-finding by the North Korean defectors of the Gyeongbuk-do,” various newspapers, military and police-related materials (the police history of the North Korean police, the first report on the progress of operations, and the military affairs of the Republic of Korea), and the statements of bereaved families (the specific relevant evidence and facts-finding of the facts that the victims of the instant case died as the case of sacrifice by the ▽▽▽ Civilian Military,

B) The instant case involving the sacrifice of civilians was committed in a group or organized manner by the State authority, such as the police or military personnel during the time of national emergency and was killed without due process. In that process, there were many cases where the bereaved family members were not aware of the existence of the victim’s death or the reason of the death.

C) It was difficult for the bereaved family members to obtain objective evidence due to the occurrence of most of the data that have already passed for a long time from the time of the occurrence of the instant case, or the absence of survivors, etc., and the bereaved family members could have concealed the details of the victims’ death in order not to receive any tangible or intangible disadvantage after the occurrence of the instant case.

3) Determination on individual victims

We examine the evidence of the 36 persons who made the instant sacrifice in addition to the truth-finding process of the instant case, as follows.

A) The deceased Nonparty 3, Nonparty 4, Nonparty 5, Nonparty 6, Nonparty 7, and Nonparty 23

① In light of the fact that the deceased was killed in a military police unit, there were two citizens’ report (Evidence No. 84, 113-15, 15, 17, and 19) (Evidence No. 84, 113-15, 17, and 19). ② The above deceased’s statements were made by Nonparty 39 (Evidence No. 56), and Nonparty 40 (Evidence No. 57), ③ the deceased Nonparty 3’s early Nonparty 41 (Evidence No. 85), Nonparty 42 (Evidence No. 61), Nonparty 43 (Evidence No. 98, 114-2), the deceased Nonparty 5’s birth Nonparty 45 (Evidence No. 91), Nonparty 65 (Evidence No. 93, 14-1), Nonparty 45 (Evidence No. 14, 57, Nonparty 6, who made a sacrifice of the deceased, Nonparty 6’s deceased Nonparty 6’s 45 (Evidence No. 657). 7).7).

B) The deceased Nonparty 8, Nonparty 14, and Nonparty 24

① In view of the fact that the above deceased was detained on the ground that he was the ○○ ○○○○ Cooperative, and later he was detained, Nonparty 47 (No. 54) and Nonparty 48 (No. 55) of the village resident’s statement that he was detained on the sea prior to the china 60222, the above deceased’s statement was made; ② there was a china report on china on the deceased Nonparty 8 (No. 84); ③ Nonparty 49 (Evidence No. 86); and Nonparty 50 (Evidence 114-15) of the deceased’s statement that corresponds to the fact of sacrifice, etc., the above deceased’s sacrifice may be recognized.

C) The deceased Nonparty 9, Nonparty 10, Nonparty 26, Nonparty 27, Nonparty 28, and Nonparty 29

① The above deceased’s statements were made by Nonparty 51 (No. 60) and Nonparty 52 (Evidence No. 65 of the A), and Nonparty 52 (Evidence No. 113-10 through 14) on the deceased; ② there was a report on masseception of the deceased; ③ Nonparty 53 (Evidence No. 53, 114-4 of the deceased’s children; ③ Nonparty 54 (Evidence No. 114-5 of the deceased’s children); and Nonparty 10 of the deceased Nonparty 26, Nonparty 5 (Evidence No. 103, 14-7 of the deceased’s children; and Nonparty 27, Nonparty 56 (Evidence No. 101, 114-18 of the deceased); and Nonparty 1597 (Evidence No. 298 of the deceased’s testimony).

D) The deceased Nonparty 11, Nonparty 25

① In light of the following facts, the above deceased’s statements were made according to Nonparty 59 (No. 58) and Nonparty 60 (Evidence No. 59 of the A), and the fact that the deceased’s statements were made according to the fact that the deceased’s statements were made according to the fact that the deceased’s statements were made in compliance with the sacrifice:

E) The deceased non-party 12

① 망 소외 12가 1950. 7.경 ◎◎◎지서로 연행된 후 ◈◈◈산에서 희생되어 위 망인의 모친이 시신을 수습하였다는 동생 소외 64의 진술(갑 제87호증)이 있는 점, ② 망 소외 12의 제적등본(갑 제13-1호증) 상의 사망신고일이 1950. 7. 20.경으로 ▽▽ 민간인 희생사건이 발생한 시기 무렵인 점 등을 고려하면 위 망인의 희생사실을 인정할 수 있다.

F) The deceased Nonparty 13

① Considering the fact that Nonparty 65 (No. 66) and Nonparty 66 (Evidence No. 67) of the village resident, who made a sacrifice in Dok, after the deceased Nonparty 13 was involved in the dedicated unit of the dedicated unit on June 1950, the fact of sacrifice of the deceased can be recognized, taking into account the following: (a) Nonparty 67 (Evidence No. 49); (b) Nonparty 67 (Evidence No. 49); and Nonparty 68 (Evidence No. 114-6) also make a statement that corresponds to the facts of sacrifice; and (c) there was a report on mass scams (Evidence No. 113-7) on the deceased.

G) The deceased Nonparty 15, Nonparty 33

① 위 망인들이 연행되어 ◐◐◐ 앞바다에 수장되었다는 취지의 마을주민 소외 69(갑 제79호증)의 진술이 있는 점, ② 망 소외 15의 아들 소외 70(갑 제48, 114-7호증), 망 소외 33의 동생 소외 71(갑 제96호증)도 희생사실에 부합하는 진술을 하는 점, ③ 위 망인들에 대한 양민피살자신고서(갑 제84, 113-20호증)도 있는 점 등을 고려하면 위 망인들의 희생사실을 인정할 수 있다.

H) The deceased non-party 16

① The above deceased’s statements were made by Nonparty 72 (No. 97) who was made a sacrifice after having been supposed as the ▽△△ Police Station around July 23, 1950; ② the above deceased’s statements correspond to the facts of sacrifice as well as the statements made by Nonparty 73 (No. 51) and Nonparty 74 (Evidence No. 63) of the birth suppose; ③ the death day under the above deceased’s transcript (Evidence No. 17-1) was the time around July 23, 1950 when the above deceased’s destruction was occurred. In light of the above, the facts of sacrifice of the deceased can be recognized.

I) The deceased Nonparty 17, Nonparty 34

① Each statement made by Nonparty 75 (Evidence 69 of A), Nonparty 76 (Evidence 70 of A), and Nonparty 17 (Evidence 90 of A), Nonparty 77 (Evidence 90, 114-11 of the deceased’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s 111170.

(j) The deceased Nonparty 18

① Considering the fact that the above deceased’s sacrifice was made by Nonparty 79 (Evidence 71 of A) and Nonparty 80 (Evidence 72 of A), each statement made by the deceased’s dongs Nonparty 81 (Evidence 50 of A), and Nonparty 82 (Evidence 114-8 of A), each statement made by the deceased’s dongs Nonparty 81 (Evidence 50 of A), correspond to the facts of sacrifice, and ③ the above deceased’s Domination report (Evidence 113-4 of A) against the deceased, the above deceased’s sacrifies may be recognized.

k) The deceased Nonparty 19, Nonparty 36, and Nonparty 37

① 위 망인들이 1950. 8.경 ◁◁지서로 연행된 후 장기면 ♡♡♡ 계곡에서 총살되었다는 내용의 마을주민 소외 83(갑 제73호증), 소외 84(갑 제74호증)의 각 진술이 있는 점, ② 망 소외 19의 아들 소외 85(갑 제92, 114-13호증), 망 소외 37의 동생 소외 86(갑 제110호증)도 희생사실에 부합하는 진술을 하는 점 등을 고려하면 위 망인들의 희생사실을 인정할 수 있다.

l) The deceased non-party 20

① 위 망인이 ☆☆당의 ▲▲면 경제부장을 하였는데 ▽▽경찰서로 끌려가서 희생되었다는 마을주민 소외 87의 진술(갑 제82호증)이 있는 점, ② 위 망인의 아들인 소외 88(갑 제68, 114-2호증)도 위 망인이 1950. 5. 14. 군용트럭에 실려 연행된 후 희생되었다고 진술하는 점 등을 고려하면 위 망인의 희생사실을 인정할 수 있다.

(m) The deceased Nonparty 21

① In light of the fact that the deceased Nonparty 21’s children Nonparty 89 (No. 45 of the deceased’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’

n) The deceased non-party 22

① Taking into account the fact that there was a report on the Maternicide (No. 113-5) against the deceased Nonparty 22, and the fact that the deceased made a statement by Nonparty 91 (Evidence A, No. 89, 114-10) of the deceased who made a sacrifice after being tried by a military police around June 1950, the above deceased’s son’s son’s son who made a sacrifice may be recognized.

o) The deceased non-party 30

① Taking into account the fact that there was a report on the Maternal Disease (Evidence A No. 113-21) against the deceased Nonparty 30, ② village residents Nonparty 92 (Evidence A 80), and Nonparty 93 (Evidence A 81) stated that the deceased Nonparty 30 died of being involved in the ○○○ Federation, ③ Nonparty 94 (Evidence A95) of the deceased’s birth, and Nonparty 95 (Evidence A114-26) of the deceased, etc., the above deceased’s sacrifice may be recognized.

(p) The deceased Nonparty 31, Nonparty 32

① 마을주민 소외 96(갑 제77호증), 소외 97(갑 제78호증), 소외 98(갑 제107호증), 소외 99(갑 제108호증)은 위 망인들이 ○○연맹원이라는 이유로 ▒▒앞바다로 끌려가서 수장되었다고 진술한 점, ② 망 소외 31의 조카 소외 100(갑 제114-24호증), 망 소외 32의 동생 소외 101(갑 제106호증)도 희생사실에 부합하는 진술을 하는 점 등을 고려하면 위 망인들의 희생사실을 인정할 수 있다.

q) The deceased Nonparty 35

① 마을주민 소외 102(갑 제75호증), 소외 103(갑 제76호증), 소외 104(갑 제105호증)는 ○○연맹사건과 관련하여 망 소외 35가 1950. 7. 15.경 ◁◁지서로 연행되어 감금되어 있다가 ▤▤골짜기에서 총살되었다고 진술한 점, ② 위 망인에 대한 양민피살자신고서(갑 제113-1호증)가 있는 점, ③ 위 망인의 딸 소외 105(갑 제62, 104호증)도 희생사실에 부합하는 진술을 하는 점 등을 고려하면 위 망인들의 희생사실을 인정할 수 있다.

r) The deceased non-party 38

① 망 소외 38의 아들 소외 106(갑 제111, 114-23호증)는 위 망인이 ▽▽경찰서로 연행된 후 희생되었다고 진술한 점, ② 망 소외 38의 친구의 아들인 소외 107(갑 제112호증)는 자신의 부친이 망 소외 38과 친했는데 위 망인이 자신의 집에서 낮잠을 자던 중 경찰관에 의해 연행되었고, 부친으로부터 위 망인이 ▽▽경찰서로 연행된 후 ●●●● 앞바다에 수장되었다는 이야기를 들었다고 진술한 점 등을 고려하면 위 망인들의 희생사실을 인정할 수 있다.

C. Establishment of liability for damages

According to the facts acknowledged earlier, as the police officers, etc., who are public officials belonging to the Defendant, murdered the victims of this case without due process without any justifiable reason, thereby suffering mental distress to the victims of this case and their bereaved family members, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is liable to compensate the victims of this case and their bereaved family members for damages incurred to them due to the unlawful performance of duties by public officials

4. Judgment on the defendant's defense of extinctive prescription

A. Summary of the parties' assertion

The defendant asserted that since the lawsuit of this case was filed five years after the death of the victim, the plaintiffs' right to claim damages was extinguished by prescription.

As to this, the plaintiffs re-appeal to the purport that the defendant's defense of extinctive prescription cannot be allowed as an abuse of rights.

B. Determination

The right to claim for compensation under Article 2(1) of the State Compensation Act is extinguished when it is not exercised for five years as a right to the State for the payment of money. It is evident that the instant lawsuit was filed after five years from July 1950 or from September 1950, which appears that the victims of this case were dead.

1) Whether the defendant's defense of extinctive prescription constitutes abuse of rights

A) Relevant legal principles

The exercise of the right of defense on the ground of extinctive prescription is governed by the principle of good faith and the prohibition of abuse of rights, which are the major principles of the Civil Act. As such, inasmuch as an obligor has shown the same attitude that the obligor would not invoke the prescription after the completion of extinctive prescription, and where an obligor exercised his/her right within a reasonable period where the obligor could expect the exercise of the right by the right holder, the obligor’s assertion of the completion of extinctive prescription is not permissible as an abuse of rights against the principle of good faith (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da66969, Sept. 8, 201

As long as the State, through the enactment of the Act on the Settlement of History in the past, declares again historical facts before several hundred years and declares to withdraw measures to recover damage to victims and their bereaved family members, and there is no restriction on the method of implementation thereof, it shall be deemed that the victim, etc. has made a declaration that he/she would ultimately accept the method of judicial relief seeking damages by the method of claiming State compensation. In addition, the legal meaning derived from the fact lies in the purport that he/she expressed his/her intention not to refuse compensation by asserting the new extinctive prescription in a specific litigation case.

Therefore, in a case where the State received an application to verify the truth of a victim who is subject to the application of the Act on the Settlement of History and concluded a truth-finding decision that confirmed or presumed as a victim by the Criminal Procedure Commission established under the same Act, it is reasonable to deem that, based on such decision, there was a special circumstance to believe that when the victim or his/her bereaved family exercises their rights within a reasonable period, the Defendant would not assert the extinguishment of rights on the ground of the completion of the statute of limitations. Nevertheless, if the State claims the completion of the statute of limitations against the victim, etc., it constitutes an abuse of rights against the principle of trust and good faith, and thus, it is not permissible (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 20

On the other hand, whether a right was exercised within a reasonable period of time should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the relationship between the obligee and the obligor, the details, motive and background of the obligor’s act given trust, the purpose and genuine intent that the obligor intended to achieve through such act, and whether there were any special circumstances to delay the obligee’s exercise of right. However, “reasonable period” of the above exercise of right should be limited to a short period of time pursuant to the suspension of prescription under the Civil Act, barring any special circumstances. Even in cases where it is inevitable to acknowledge an extension of the period due to a very special circumstance in each individual case, the period may not exceed three years, which is the short term statute of limitations under Article 766(1) of the Civil Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da202819, May 16, 2013).

B) Determination

In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the Plaintiffs filed the instant lawsuit on January 13, 2012, where two years and three months have passed since October 6, 2009 when the Defendant rendered the same trust that the Defendant would not invoke the benefit of extinctive prescription, based on the findings of the fact-finding of the instant case as to the victims of the instant case. In light of the following circumstances revealed in the argument, the Plaintiffs were in fact-finding, and in light of the aforementioned circumstances, the Plaintiffs exercised their rights within a reasonable period under the good faith principle from the date of the truth-finding decision.

(1) It is reasonable to view that the Plaintiffs, who declared that the Defendant would take appropriate measures to recover the damage and honor of victims, victims, and bereaved families according to the truth discovered through the Act on the Settlement of History, expected that the Defendant would take appropriate measures to restore honor and compensate for damage, such as enacting a special law.

(2) Nevertheless, the Defendant did not take any active measures until now, and eventually, it appears that the Plaintiffs brought a lawsuit claiming damages against the Defendant individually.

(3) Since the tort committed by the Defendant was committed on a systematic and non-human basis at the State level, its illegality is very serious, while the victims of this case were killed by the Defendant without any justifiable reason, and their families were also suffering from severe mental pain. In particular, the victims of this case are likely to have suffered from the pain of their families due to the Defendant’s tort.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion that the extinctive prescription has expired due to the death of the victim of this case constitutes an abuse of rights against the principle of good faith and thus, it cannot be permitted. Therefore, the defendant's defense of extinctive prescription is without merit.

2) Whether the defendant's defense of extinctive prescription against the plaintiffs who did not apply for ascertaining the truth constitutes abuse of rights

Furthermore, in relation to the claim of the bereaved family members who did not apply for a truth-finding to the Recent Mediation Committee, where the Recent Mediation Committee ex officio commenced an investigation pursuant to Article 22(3) of the Act on the Settlement of History, stating that “Where there is a reasonable ground to believe that the case constitutes a truth-finding case as an intentional important case, and that the truth-finding is serious, it may be investigated ex officio,” and conducted a truth-finding decision to confirm or presume the victim as a victim, in light of the legislative purpose of the Act on the Settlement of History and the contents of the above provision, it shall be deemed that the damage and restoration of honor of the victim must be performed and the intention of the State under the Act on the Settlement of History is included in consideration of the seriousness of the relevant case, and there is no reason to treat the victim as a victim of the truth-finding decision differently from the case where the truth-finding decision was made by the application for a truth-finding confirmation in terms of granting trust to the victim, it constitutes abuse of rights (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da1602).

In light of the above legal principles, as to the victims Nos. 21 through 36 (Plaintiffs 84 through 147) among the persons who made the sacrifice in this case, the court below did not request the court to find the truth. The court below conducted ex officio an investigation on the above victims and confirmed or presumed the victims, and the plaintiffs who did not request the truth-finding as well as the plaintiffs who exercised their rights by filing the suit in this case within a reasonable period of time under the principle of good faith. Thus, since there is no reason to treat the plaintiffs who did not request the truth-finding as different from the plaintiffs who filed the application to find the truth-finding, the defendant's assertion for the completion of the statute of limitations is not allowed as well as because it constitutes abuse of rights.

Therefore, the defendant's defense of extinctive prescription against the plaintiffs who did not apply for the establishment of truth is not justified.

5. Scope of liability for damages

(a) Amount of consolation money;

In full view of the suffering suffered by the victims of this case due to the ▽▽▽ Civilian sacrifice case, discrimination against the deceased's bereaved family members by the society and the government, economic lack, equity with similar cases, and other various circumstances revealed in this case under the false perception of the above case, it is reasonable to determine consolation money for the victims themselves, KRW 80 million for the consolation money for the victims themselves, KRW 40 million for the consolation money for their spouses, KRW 8 million for the consolation money for their parents or children, KRW 8 million for the consolation money for their respective parents or children, and KRW 4 million for the siblings, respectively.

(b) Inheritance relationship and amount of award;

Based on this, when calculating the amount of damages of the plaintiffs in consideration of the portion of inheritance listed in the attached Table 4. Succession 4. The amount of money listed in the attached Table 2. 2.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay from October 1, 1950 to the plaintiffs according to the rate of 5% per annum prescribed by the Civil Act and 20% per annum prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment (the plaintiff is seeking compensation for delay from October 1, 1950, the time of death of the victim of this case, but compensation for delay due to the lapse of three months after the lapse of the period of time between the time of the tort and the time of the conclusion of the arguments, when considerable changes have occurred in comparison with the time of tort in monetary value, etc. at the time of the conclusion of the arguments in this case, the compensation for delay caused by tort shall be deemed to have occurred from the date of the conclusion of the arguments in fact-finding proceedings (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Da13909, Oct. 13, 201).

6. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

A judge who franks the mobilization of force (Presiding Judge)