All appeals by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

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

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

A. The reasoning for the statement concerning this case is the same as that for the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(The argument that the plaintiff emphasizes in this court is not significantly different from the argument in the first instance court, and even if the plaintiff further submitted the evidence Nos. 30-1 through 7, Gap No. 31, and Gap Nos. 32 and 33 are comprehensively examined, the fact-finding and judgment in the first instance court are justifiable).

However, from 10th to 14th of the 10th judgment document of the court of first instance, the following shall be followed:

In light of the above, the plaintiffs' claim for damages falls under the State compensation claim for mental harm caused by public officials' unlawful performance of duties in the suspicion of gross violation of human rights under Article 2 (1) 4 of the Framework Act on Settlement of Truth and Reconciliation. The Constitutional Court Decision 2014HunBa148, 162, 162, 219, 466, 2015HunBa50, 440 (combined), 2014HunBa223, 290, 2016HunBa419 (Joint) decided unconstitutional, 2014HunBa23, 290, 2016HunBa416 (2) of the Civil Act, and Article 96 (2) of the National Finance Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 208Hun-Ba168, Aug. 30, 2018) which provides for the period of extinctive prescription for monetary benefit to the State.

2. In conclusion, the judgment of the court of first instance is justified, and all appeals by the plaintiffs are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.