Plaintiff 1 and 21 others (Attorney Kim Jae-sik, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Republic of Korea (Government Law Firm Corporation, Attorneys Kim Young-young, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

September 23, 2011

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs 10 million won with 5% interest per annum from September 23, 201 to October 7, 2011, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. The plaintiffs' remaining claims are all dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, 4/5 are assessed against the Plaintiffs, and the remainder are assessed against the Defendant.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs 50,000,000 won with 5% interest per annum from the delivery date of each complaint to the pronouncement date of judgment, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the full payment date of each complaint.

1. Basic facts

A. Status of the parties

The Plaintiffs were dismissed on April 1, 1978 while serving in the same occupation company (hereinafter referred to as “same occupation company”) and serving as executive officers and members of a trade union.

(b) interference with trade union activities on July 1976;

From April 1976, the same position has been involved in the election of a trade union through opposing union members at the time of the enforcement of the trade union. On July 23, 1976, the police officers of the Incheon Dong-gu Police Station arrested the non-party 1 chapter chief and the non-party 2 chief executive officer who is the core body of the enforcement department on July 23, 1976, the date of holding the competition of the same union, and search the office without the warrant on suspicion of embezzlement of public funds, the opposite union members of the trade union opened a competition and passed a non-Confidence proposal for the enforcement department and elected a new chapter chief to the end.

around July 26, 1976, when a police officer was dissolved, female members, who were found to have been off, her clothes, put out, or resisted with her body.

As a result of the investigation of the past History Settlement Committee for Truth and Reconciliation (hereinafter referred to as the “Reconciliation Committee”), the suspicion of embezzlement against Nonparty 1 Chapter 1 and the chief of the general affairs division for Non-Party 2 was merely old room, and the substantial reason for arrest was to prevent them from participating in the competition of representatives, and there was a central information division in the hinterland.

(c) interference with, dismissal, etc. of trade union activities on February 1978.

At around 06:00 on February 23, 1978, the representative election day of the same trade union, the 5-6-6 opposing union members administered the processed excreta to the union members who were trying to vote. Because of these smalls, the voting did not proceed any longer.

On March 1, 1978, members began to be deaf in same-sexs, etc., on condition that a trade union receives the request of a "Guarantee of Reinstatement from Office and Release of Prisoners" from the Probation Committee, the company's return to the company was decided, and the company's return was decided up to the time of return of deaf workers. However, on April 1, 1978, more than 120 members, including the plaintiffs, were dismissed, and the trade union reached an excessive decision.

As a result of the investigation of the past History Settlement Committee, the Central Information Board intervenedd in depth by holding consultation with opposing members on the above case, and it was found that the above members were dismissed under the direction of the branch of the Central Information Board of Gyeonggi-do.

D. Management, distribution, etc. of so-called "boom list"

On April 10, 1978, under the title of the "matters concerning the performance of duties" in the name of the head of the Busan Branch of the Korea Textiles Trade Union's Busan Branch Office, the public letter stating that "in order to make a group of workers engaged in the same (in human), from among the employees employed in the same (in person), notification of the list of the dismissed workers who left the workplace was distributed to the nationwide workplace." This is accompanied by the list stating the personal information of the workers employed in the same worker, including the plaintiffs (However, the plaintiff 22 was indicated as non-party 3, and the name of the plaintiff 4 is not indicated).

Even after the fact that the list was managed and distributed in the same manner, and the so-called 116 list among the employees dismissed in the same occupation was also included in the so-called Gambs of the same industry, which was discovered in around 1987. In addition, for this reason, the workers employed in the same occupation, including the plaintiffs, could not be employed in another company, was immediately dismissed.

As a result of the investigation of the past History Settlement Board, the fact that the Central Information Board was involved in the preparation of the above list on April 1978, and the fact that state agencies, such as the police, the Ministry of Labor, and the Central Information Board, such as the National Police, the Ministry of Labor, and the National Information Board, have prepared, kept, and distributed such list in addition to the general affairs of each workplace and the center during the 1980s, have been used as a means to control the labor movement by means of the management of the said list. [The black list has been prepared under close cooperation with each individual company's information to isolate and manage dismissed workers and the labor movement in a systematic manner by the Central Information Board and the National Security Planning Board, and has been kept and used in each workplace, the Ministry of Labor, the labor inspector, and the intelligence agency. The Central Information Board, etc. presented the guidelines for the management of the black list to the relevant agencies through the countermeasures conference of the related agencies.]

E. Progresss thereafter

On February 1, 2010, Plaintiff 4, Plaintiff 6, Jun. 1, 2004, and Plaintiff 10, the rest of the Plaintiffs, other than the above Plaintiffs and Plaintiff 10, were recognized as persons related to democratization movements in the Compensation Deliberation Committee (hereinafter “Compensation Deliberation Committee”) around 2001. In this case, the facts recognized are pertaining to demonstration and farming, subsequent dismissal, and the facts of criminal punishment for part of the Plaintiffs were also stated.

On April 11, 2006, Plaintiff 21 et al. filed an application for a truth-finding with the past History Settlement Commission, and the past History Settlement Commission decided to commence the investigation on February 20, 2007, and issued a truth-finding decision on June 30, 201 after three years’ investigation.

In addition to the nine similar cases (generally referred to as “human rights violations cases, such as the fundamental right to labor against the Cheong River, etc.”), such as the Cheong River-Jan-Jan-Jan-Jan-Jan-Jan-Pan-Pan-Pan-Pan-Pan-Pan-Pan-Pan-Pa-Pa-Pa-Pa-Pa-Pa-Pa-Pa-Pa-Pa-Pa-Pa-Pa-Pa-Pa-Pa-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-Pa-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P

【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap’s evidence 1 through 6, 2-1 through 4, 4 through 6, 7-1 through 21, 8 through 20, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

The fundamental right to labor is to ensure a substantial autonomy between labor and management in establishing a labor-management relationship by enabling workers to create a social opposing power (see, e.g., Constitutional Court Decision 94Hun-Ba13, Feb. 27, 1998). However, the Defendant’s pertinent public officials illegally participated in the Plaintiffs’ trade union activities in a manner that, around 1976 and around 1978, intervenes in the election, etc., thereby hindering the activities of the Plaintiffs’ trade union. Accordingly, this is an infringement of the essence of the fundamental right to labor.

Furthermore, the public officials of the defendant ordered the dismissal of the plaintiffs, and prepared and managed the list of dismissed workers in a systematic manner from that time, thereby preventing the plaintiffs from re-employment, thereby illegally distributing the plaintiffs' personal information as a means of discrimination. Therefore, such an act is not only an infringement on the freedom of occupation, but also infringement on the personality right derived from the dignity and value of human beings.

In addition, it is presumed that the plaintiffs suffered considerable mental suffering because they face economic difficulties, social prejudice and cooling, and thus, the defendant is liable to compensate for the damages.

3. Determination on the statute of limitations defense

A. The defendant's defense of extinctive prescription is examined, and according to the facts acknowledged earlier, it appears that the above tort was completed at the early 1990s, and since the lawsuit of this case was filed five years after it, there is room to deem that the extinctive prescription has expired once.

B. Determination on the assertion that the statute of limitations defense goes against the good faith principle

1) Parties’ assertion

The plaintiffs resist that the aforementioned defense cannot be permitted against the good faith principle.

In regard to the defense of extinctive prescription, when the defendant seeks to oppose the principle of good faith, the defendant has a previous conviction as to the relevant case, and such judgment is based on the fact based on the evidence fabricated as the adviser, etc., and thus, should be a serious matter to the extent that there exists a ground for retrial (see Supreme Court Decisions 2009Da103950, Jan. 13, 2011; 2010Da35572, Jan. 13, 2011). In this case, the defendant asserts that there was no serious error to the extent that there was no significant error, and the Supreme Court also cited the defense of extinctive prescription as to the serious infringement of life and body (see Supreme Court Decisions 2004Da33469, May 29, 2008; 94Da23692, Feb. 11, 1997).

Furthermore, the defendant asserts that there is no objective obstacle to the progress of the statute of limitations solely on the fact that there was a circumstance that it is difficult for the victim, etc. to know damages and the perpetrator, and that there was no objective obstacle to the progress of the statute of limitations, and that the plaintiffs' intervention in each trade union activity and the state in relation to the black list could be known through the press report and related books after the establishment of the Kim Young-gu government and Kim Jong-gu government through their own labor movement activities, and that the right to exercise rights was resolved at the latest around 2000 when the Act on the Restoration of Honor and Compensation to Persons Related to Democratization Movement was enacted

2) Determination

㈎ 채무자의 소멸시효에 기한 항변권의 행사도 우리 민법의 대원칙인 신의성실의 원칙과 권리남용금지의 원칙의 지배를 받는 것이어서, 채무자가 시효완성 전에 채권자의 권리행사나 시효중단을 불가능 또는 현저히 곤란하게 하였거나, 그러한 조치가 불필요하다고 믿게 하는 행동을 하였거나, 객관적으로 채권자가 권리를 행사할 수 없는 장애사유가 있었거나, 또는 일단 시효완성 후에 채무자가 시효를 원용하지 아니할 것 같은 태도를 보여 권리자로 하여금 그와 같이 신뢰하게 하였거나, 채권자 보호의 필요성이 크고, 같은 조건의 다른 채권자가 채무의 변제를 수령하는 등의 사정이 있어 채무이행의 거절을 인정함이 현저히 부당하거나 불공평하게 되는 등의 특별한 사정이 있는 경우에는 채무자가 소멸시효의 완성을 주장하는 것이 신의성실의 원칙에 반하여 권리남용으로서 허용될 수 없다( 대법원 2011. 1. 13. 선고 2009다103950 판결 참조).

㈏ 먼저 이 사건에서 ‘객관적으로 채권자가 권리를 행사할 수 없는 장애사유‘가 있었는지에 관하여 본다.

Even though there was a circumstance in which the victim cannot be seen as an objective obstacle to the progress of extinctive prescription merely because of the fact that there was a situation in which it is difficult for the victim to know the damage and the perpetrator, it does not necessarily mean that the State would make it impossible for the Plaintiffs to exercise their rights by taking active concealment measures, or that there was an objective obstacle only when there was a ground that constitutes a ground for review of the judgment. The fact that there was an objective obstacle to the exercise of rights is difficult to expect such exercise of rights when considering the general public’s snow, and that the failure by the creditor can be deemed socially reasonable. In other words

As seen earlier, in relation to the obstruction and dismissal of trade union activities on or around 1976 and around 1978, the same position interfered with trade union activities and dismissed workers. The black list was prepared, managed, and distributed in a secret book. Therefore, even if the plaintiffs could have engaged in the hinterlands, it was practically impossible to find specific facts to the extent that the contents of the defendant's illegal act can be specified in excess of the plaintiffs' vague suspicion and conjection. Furthermore, even though the past History Mediation Committee conducted extensive investigations, it was revealed only that the defendant's intelligence agency participated, but did not grasp the person in charge, or the collection and management attitude of black list. However, even after the fact that the defendant denies the illegal act even after the fact that the above fact was established, the defendant demanded the plaintiffs to specify the detailed contents and damages of the illegal act in this case.

In light of these circumstances, even if the plaintiffs were to know about the possibility of intervention of the defendant through the media, it is difficult to reasonably prove the details of the defendant's specific illegal acts by claiming state compensation against the state prior to the investigation by the past history adjustment committee. Rather, it is reasonable that the plaintiffs are waiting for the result of the official investigation by the competent state agency based on the suspicion raised through the above information. As seen earlier, as seen earlier, since the plaintiffs 21 et al. applied for the truth-finding to the past history adjustment committee on April 11, 2006 and filed a lawsuit according to the results of the investigation by the past history adjustment committee, it is unreasonable to deem that the defendant did not exercise the right to claim damages prior to the investigation by the plaintiffs.

Therefore, prior to June 30, 2010, the case cited by the Defendants ought to be deemed to have had an objective disability that could not be exercised against the Plaintiffs. The precedent cited by the Defendants is not appropriate for the different factual relations to be invoked, and each of the descriptions of the evidence Nos. 1, 2-1 through 4, 3, 4, 5-1 through 4, 6, 7, 8-1, 8-2 is insufficient to acknowledge that the objective disability was resolved prior to June 30, 2010, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Therefore, the Defendant’s above assertion is without merit.

㈐ 다음으로 이 사안이 ‘채권자 보호의 필요성이 크고, 채무 이행의 거절을 인정함이 현저하게 부당하게 되는 등의 특별한 사정이 있는 경우’에 해당하는지에 관하여 본다.

In the instant case, beyond ordinary error to the extent that the Defendant’s government agency was prevented during the course of performing its duties, the Defendant’s government agency engaged in labor-management relations in a systematic and secret manner to suppress trade union activities and prepare and distribute a black list and interfered with re-employment. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs may presume that the Plaintiffs were unable to maintain their livelihood as a normal occupation and sent time and time for fear and pain without engaging in daily life for a long time. As such, the illegality of the above act cannot be deemed to be negligible. Considering such circumstances and the fact that the Defendant’s assertion of the completion of extinctive prescription against the Plaintiffs would block the passage of adequate compensation for damages through the judicial decision, the need to protect the Plaintiffs who suffered damage by the Defendant’s tort, while recognizing the Defendant’s rejection of performance is remarkably unfair or unfair.

㈑ 따라서 이 사건은 원고들이 그 청구권을 행사할 수 없는 객관적인 사정이 있었거나 소멸시효를 인정하는 것이 현저히 부당하거나 불공평하게 되는 등의 특별한 사정이 있었던 경우에 해당하며, 피고가 그 소멸시효의 완성을 주장하는 것은 권리남용에 해당하여 허용될 수 없다.

4. Scope of liability for damages

In full view of all the circumstances revealed in pleadings, including the details and degree of tort, and the time and time interval, it is reasonable to recognize consolation money for the Plaintiffs as KRW 10,000,000, respectively.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiffs each of KRW 10,00,000 and the damages for delay at each rate of KRW 5% per annum under the Civil Act from September 23, 201, which is the date of the closing of argument in the instant case, to October 7, 201, which is the date of the judgment from September 23, 201, and KRW 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment [the Plaintiffs seek damages for delay from the date of delivery of the complaint, but where there is a considerable change in monetary value, etc. due to the lapse of three months from the time of tort and the time of closing of argument, the initial date in which damages for delay of compensation liability due to tort should be the date of closing of argument in the fact-finding court (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da103950, Jan. 13,

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims are accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as they are without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Showon (Presiding Judge)