1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, 35,00,000 won against the defendant A, 77,000,000 won against the plaintiff B, and 7,000 won against the plaintiff C.

1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows: "No. 6-1 and No. 2 of A" in Part 5-3 of the first instance court's judgment "No. 1, 3, 1, 2, and 7-1 of the evidence No. 1, 6-1 of the evidence No. 1, 2, and 7-1 of the first instance court's "the fact-finding results of the fact-finding office of the Cheongbuk-gun-gun Office of the first instance court's Cheongdo-do-gun Office"; "The circumstances indicated in the 5th to 10th court's 1th court's 1th court's 1th court's 12th court's 12th court's 12th court's "70,000,000 won"; "No. 130,000 won" and "No. 300,000 won" are as follows; "No. 3000,0000 won".

2. Parts in height:

B. Determination 1) Claim for damages against a State arising from a tort is extinguished by prescription if it is not exercised for five (5) years from the date of the tort (amended by Act No. 42 of Apr. 7, 1921 and repealed by Act No. 217 of Sept. 24, 1951), and Article 32 of the former Accounting Act before being repealed by Act No. 217 of Sept. 24, 1951). This is directly proceeding from the date of the tort, and thus, the Framework Act on the Settlement of History for Truth for Truth (hereinafter “The Act on the Settlement of History”).

Even if the truth-finding decision was made to confirm that the victim was the victim of the sacrifice before and after the Korean War, the extinctive prescription of the right to claim damages was completed at the time when five years have elapsed from September 10, 1951.

However, the exercise of the right of defense on the ground of extinctive prescription is governed by the principle of good faith and the principle of prohibition of abuse of rights, which is the major principle of the civil law, and thus, the debtor does not invoke the prescription after the expiration of extinctive prescription