[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff (Attorney Cho Young-soo et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Republic of Korea (Law Firm Han, Attorney Choi Woo-woo, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

May 23, 2013

Seoul Central District Court Decision 201Da44291 Decided August 21, 2012

1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 70 million won with 5% interest per annum from May 23, 2013 to June 13, 2013, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. The remaining appeal by the plaintiff and the plaintiff's claim expanded in the trial and the defendant's appeal are dismissed, respectively.

3. Of the total litigation costs, 2/3 shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

4. The portion of payment of the amount under paragraph (1) may be provisionally executed.

1. Claim: The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 30 million won with 5% interest per annum from January 11, 1979 to the delivery date of a duplicate of the complaint of this case, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment (the plaintiff extended the claim at the trial).

2. Purport of appeal

A. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff is revoked. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 70 million won with 5% interest per annum from January 11, 1979 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 full payment.

B. Defendant: The part against the Defendant in the first instance judgment is revoked, and the Plaintiff’s claim corresponding to the revocation portion is dismissed.

1. cite the reasoning of the first instance judgment;

The reasoning of the court's reasoning concerning this case is as follows: (a) of the 4. A of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance; and (b) the 10th 17th 17th "the defendant" was used as "the plaintiff," and the 2-11th 16th 16th of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, thereby citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. Parts dried - The amount of consolation money; and

In this case, the basic responsibility should be to protect the human rights of the people. Since illegal confinement and harsh treatment were committed in a systematic manner by the state power, the Supreme Court's judgment was reversed and the judgment of innocence became final and conclusive, in view of the fact that the plaintiff, who had been promising to move to ○○ University and △△ University after completion of the course of study at ○○ University and graduate schools, was forced to proceed one year without a sudden warrant, and was detained one-year more, and was suspected of espionage for three years, there were various difficulties, such as mental and physical symptoms and pain after release, social trial and economic difficulties for the person who was judged guilty of espionage, etc., but it would be difficult to expect compensation from 0 months after considering the fact that the court's judgment was made invalid confinement and harsh treatment by the state agency, or that there was considerable change in the amount of consolation money between the plaintiff and △△ University's family relation at the time of oral argument, it would be difficult to expect compensation for damages from 00 months to 0 days after the date of oral argument.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, with respect to consolation money of KRW 100,000 and KRW 30,000,00 as cited by the judgment of the court of first instance among the Plaintiff, the Defendant is obligated to dispute about the existence and scope of the obligation to perform as to the Plaintiff from July 17, 2012, which is the date of the closing of argument in the court of first instance until August 21, 2012, which is the date of the judgment of the court of first instance, to which it is deemed reasonable for the Defendant to dispute about the existence and scope of the obligation to perform; KRW 5% per annum as stipulated by the Civil Act until August 21, 2012, which is the date of the judgment of the court of first instance; KRW 70,000,000, which is the date after the next day to the date of full payment; and KRW 70,000,000, which is the date of additional payment in the court of first instance to the date of full payment; and KRW 25% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. Since part of the part against the plaintiff in the judgment of the court of first instance which partially accepted the plaintiff's appeal and revoked it, and order the defendant to pay the above money additionally recognized in the trial. Since the remaining part of the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, the plaintiff's remaining appeal and the plaintiff's claim expanded in the trial and the appeal of the defendant are all dismissed as it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Jae-mo (Presiding Judge)