1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 66,368,800 to Plaintiff A; (b) KRW 40,000,000 to Plaintiff E; and (c) KRW 10,000,000 to Plaintiff F and each of the said money.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On February 24, 1979, the judgment of conviction against the Plaintiff A and the content of the calendar 1) Plaintiff A’s emergency measures on February 24, 1979 for the national safety and the protection of public order (hereinafter “emergency measures No. 9”).

After a detention warrant was issued due to an offense, it was prosecuted by the Seoul District Criminal Court 79Gohap142 at that time, and the summary of the facts charged is attached to the attached Form.

2. The description;

2) On June 14, 1979, the above court found the Plaintiff guilty on all the charges by applying Article 9(7), (2), (1)(a), and (b) of Emergency Measures against the Plaintiff, and sentenced the said charges to imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months and suspension of qualification for one year and six months. The above judgment became final and conclusive on August 13, 1979 upon withdrawal of the appeal by the Plaintiff and the Prosecutor (hereinafter “instant judgment subject to a retrial”).

(3) On August 15, 1979, Plaintiff A was released from prison labor upon suspension of the execution of punishment while serving in prison according to the above judgment.

B. A final judgment of innocence 1) On January 20, 2012, Plaintiff A filed a petition for a retrial with the Seoul Central District Court 2012 inventory 6 on the instant judgment subject to retrial. 2) On April 29, 2013, the said court rendered a judgment of innocence against Plaintiff A on June 5, 2013 after commencing a retrial on the said judgment. The said judgment of innocence becomes final and conclusive on the same day, and the reasons for the judgment of innocence are as follows.

① Emergency measures prescribed in Article 53 of the former Constitution (wholly amended by Act No. 9 of Oct. 27, 1980; hereinafter “former Constitution”) are those prescribed in subparagraph 9 of the Emergency Measures based on the Emergency Rights prescribed in Article 53 of the former Constitution (wholly amended by Act No. 9 of Oct. 27, 1980; hereinafter “former Constitution”) infringing the fundamental rights of the people guaranteed by the Constitution

Therefore, even before the Emergency Decree No. 9 was cancelled or invalidated, it is unconstitutional in violation of the Constitution, and furthermore, it is unconstitutional in light of the current Constitution that provides the protection of fundamental rights infringed by Emergency Decree No. 9.