1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs each money stated in the attached Form 2 inheritance relationship and the "total amount sheet" and each of the above money.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff A’s conviction and conviction against the Plaintiff A (hereinafter “Emergency Measures”) on the ground that Plaintiff A instigated students to refuse to teach for the purpose of remedying students who were detained in violation of the Emergency Decree No. 4 while attending the O University’s philosophy and the class, and were subject to removal from the military register, due to the violation of the Emergency Decree No. 4 during his/her study (hereinafter “Emergency Measures”).

(2) On August 18, 1974, after being arrested and detained without a warrant due to the suspicion of violation of subparagraph 4, the court was indicted by the Emergency General Court of Law No. 74 assistant military units No. 26 on August 3, 1974. On August 8, 1974, the above court found the plaintiff A guilty of the above facts charged and sentenced him to seven years of imprisonment. (2) The plaintiff appealed against the above judgment as the 74 senior military unit No. 26 of the Emergency High Court of Law No. 74 senior military unit No. 74, and the above court rejected the plaintiff A's allegation of mistake of facts and violation of the rules of evidence, but declared the plaintiff A to be sentenced to five years of imprisonment with labor (hereinafter "the judgment on review") after accepting the plaintiff A's allegation of unfair sentencing and reversed the judgment on September 25, 1974 (hereinafter "the judgment on review"). Although the plaintiff A appealed, on October 18,

3) On December 3, 1974, when the Plaintiff was serving in prison, was released from the suspension of the execution of sentence on December 3, 1974. (b) In the en banc Decision 2011Do2631 Decided May 16, 2013, the Supreme Court en banc Decision 2011Do2631 Decided May 16, 2013, which ruled that the Emergency Decree No. 4 violated the freedom of expression, which is an essential element of democracy, beyond the limitation for purposes without meeting the trigger requirements, and violates the warrant requirement, and infringes on the fundamental rights of the people guaranteed by the Constitution, such as the right to a trial by a judge, the freedom of learning, and the autonomy of a university, etc., before it was abolished, it was determined that it was null and void even in light of the current Constitution as well as the new Constitution. (c) The Plaintiff A was determined to have a judgment of innocence and criminal compensation1) as the judgment subject to a retrial as Seoul High Court