1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiffs falling under the following order of payment shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. From March 1949 to March 1952 before and after the Korean War, from March 1949, the civilian sacrifice case by the Jeonbuk-do police station and each police station of Jeollabuk-do, and each police station of the police stations and each branch, and each police station of the police stations, and each police station of the branch, who were in the process of military operations, killed a group of non-military civilians without due process due to suspicion that military personnel who were in the process of military operations were in the military forces in the area of Jeollabuk-do (Si/Eup/Myeon, Gun, Si, Gun, Si, Gun, Gun, Jin-gun, ancient Chang-gun, Kim Jong-si, Hain-si, and Southern-si).

(hereinafter referred to as “the civilian sacrifice case in the North Korean territory”). (b)

On December 2, 1950, the Commission for the Settlement of History established pursuant to the Framework Act on the Settlement of History for the Settlement of Truth (hereinafter “The Act on the Settlement of History”) for the Settlement of Truth (hereinafter “The Commission for Settlement of History”) decided that on December 30, 2010, the 62 or more civilians died in the above case (hereinafter “the instant decision”).

C. The Plaintiffs are the bereaved family members of the deceased AU (hereinafter “the deceased”), and their family relations are as indicated in the column of “the relationship subject to inheritance” in the attached Table 2 inheritance relationship and the amount of damages.

[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap's statements in Gap's evidence 1 to 5 (including each number, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The defendant's judgment on the main defense of this case asserts that the lawsuit of this case is unlawful since it is not known that the plaintiffs' attorney has legally granted the power of attorney from the plaintiffs.

According to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 8, the remaining plaintiffs except plaintiffO filed the lawsuit of this case with the plaintiffs' attorney.