2015Na2068834 Compensation for damages

Attached 1. It is as listed in the Plaintiff List.

Korea

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2013Da54447 Decided November 13, 2015

March 30, 2017

August 17, 2017

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed. 2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

[Disposition] The defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs the amount of money stated in the "request amount" column in attached Form 2. The defendant shall pay 5% per annum from March 14, 1979 to the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

【Purpose of Appeal】

Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the plaintiffs ordering payment is revoked. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs the amount indicated in the column of "amount of appeal after expansion" in attached Form 2. The defendant shall pay 5% interest per annum from March 14, 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 complete payment.

1. Acknowledgement of the first instance judgment

Although the law and the judicial precedents shall continue, if the requirements of the procedure are met, they may be amended or changed. In a case where there exists a precedent that continues, if the court of first instance consists of both the appellate court and the appellate court of final appeal in addition to the first instance, the requirements for modification of the judicial precedents are diverse. In this case, the Supreme Court precedents which are the first instance court exist, and the first instance court precedents which are the first instance court are cited, and exceptional circumstances necessary for the formation of the judgment for modification of the judicial precedents are also insufficient. As such, the court will follow the existing Supreme Court precedents and the judgment of first instance which cited them. This case is identical to the part of the reasoning of the judgment of first instance except for the following: (a) the reasons for this case is to be replaced by the attachment, adding the main text, adding the main text, and using it as it is stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act; (b) citing this (excluding the part

[Attachment 2] Attached to the judgment of the court of first instance shall be replaced by a claim list in attached Form 2.

3. A portion used for adding or cutting;

○ The following shall be added to Chapter 16 on the third side:

D. In the appellate trial, the litigation-related AI died on November 18, 2015, and its heir was the Plaintiff G, K, AM and the first instance court co-Plaintiff, AJ and AL, but the above AJ and AL renounced the inheritance of the claim for damages of the network AI.

○ The 3rd side of Act No. 17, "Evidence 1 through 12, and 15," written by cutting "Evidence 1 through 12, 15, and 20," respectively.

○ Part 5 of the fifth page "Court" shall be added to "Court of First Instance".

○ The 6th, 10th, 9th, 11th, and 16th, each "this Court" shall be applied to "the first instance court" respectively.

○ 10 pages 9 of the 13th "the result of the personal examination of the Plaintiff E" and the 13th "the result of each personal examination of the Plaintiff F and G" are added respectively to the court of the first instance.

The 13th page of the 16th page is as follows. The following is added. The type of tort against the national of the State, such as tort against which human beings cannot recognize extinctive prescription due to an anti-human crime, tort subject to extinctive prescription, tort subject to extinctive prescription, and tort for which the State actively should enact the guarantee of such compensation, etc., and tort for which judgment on extinctive prescription by type of evidence is required under the premise that there is specific proof by evidence, is diverse types of tort against the national of the State. As a result of comparing and arranging and comparing the Supreme Court, the Constitutional Court, the Constitutional Court, each judgment on similar or similar cases with this case, or legislation of the National Assembly on similar or similar cases with this case, the determination of this case in accordance with laws and legal principles up to

In this case, there is no assertion and proof by the Plaintiffs on special circumstances, such as that there was a violation of the victims' lives due to individual and specific illegal acts that occurred during the process of arrest, detention, investigation, trial, and trial for the citizens of the State, or that there was a serious and serious damage to the extent that such circumstances continue to exist, and that there was no proof by the Plaintiffs on special circumstances. It is not a failure of the Defendant to relieve damage caused by the past illegal acts or unfair acts of the State, but a minimum effort was made to relieve damage by the legislation of separate laws such as the Act on the

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the claim of the plaintiff A is unlawful and dismissed, and the remaining claims of the plaintiffs except the plaintiff A shall be dismissed as it is without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.

The presiding judge, judge and subordinate judge;

Judge Yang Chang-hoon

Judges Park Jong-hee