1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff A is a person who served as an assistant professor with the Korean national language department from June 15, 1973 to M University.

Plaintiff

B is the wife of Plaintiff A, and Plaintiff C, D, E, F, and G are the children of Plaintiff A.

The network N is the father of the plaintiff A, the networkO is the mother of the plaintiff A, and the network P is the partner of the plaintiff A.

Plaintiff

H is the wife of the network P, and the children of Plaintiff I, J, K, and L are the children of the network P.

B. From June 27, 1978, Plaintiff A was investigated by the Central Information Division investigator on the suspected facts that “the Presidential Emergency Decree for the National Security and the Protection of Public Order was enacted on May 13, 1975 (the Presidential Emergency Decree No. 9 was enacted on May 13, 1975, the Presidential Notice No. 67 on December 7, 1979; hereinafter “Emergency Measure No. 9”) was violated, and the warrant of detention was issued and executed on July 4, 1978 with the same criminal name against Plaintiff A.

After that, the plaintiff A was indicted as the facts charged in attached Form 2.

C. On August 28, 1978, the Gwangju District Court convicted the Plaintiff A of all the charges, and sentenced the Plaintiff A of imprisonment with prison labor for 4 years and suspension of qualification for 4 years.

(Seoul District Court Decision 78Mo146 delivered on August 28, 1978, hereinafter "the Judgment on Review"). Plaintiff A appealed against the above judgment, but the appeal was dismissed (Supreme Court Decision 78No380 delivered on December 29, 1978), and Plaintiff A appealed against the above judgment on appeal, but the judgment subject to review became final and conclusive as it was, due to the dismissal of the appeal.

(Supreme Court Decision 79Do155 delivered on March 27, 1979). Plaintiff A was released on July 17, 1979, when the execution of imprisonment was carried out in accordance with the above judgment.

Plaintiff

On April 14, 2011, A filed a request for a retrial on a judgment subject to a retrial, and received a decision of commencing a retrial on February 8, 2013.

On April 29, 2013, the Gwangju District Court held that the Emergency Measure No.9, which served as the basis for prosecution against Plaintiff A, violates the Constitution and becomes null and void, and thus, the facts charged constitute a crime.