All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On August 30, 2018, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that Article 166(1) and Article 766(2) of the Civil Act applicable to “a group sacrifice case of a private person” under Article 2(1)3 of the Framework Act on the Settlement of History for the Truth and Reconciliation (hereinafter “The Act”) and “a serious violation of human rights violations case” under Article 2(1)4 of the same Act is unconstitutional.

(The Constitutional Court en banc Decision 2014Hun-Ba148, Aug. 30, 2018; hereinafter “instant unconstitutional decision”). The effect of the instant unconstitutional decision extends to cases where a lawsuit seeking compensation for damages incurred by a public official’s unlawful performance of duties is pending in the court at the time of the unconstitutional decision, in relation to “a group sacrifice case” under Article 2(1)3 of the previous Act or “a serious human rights violation case” under subparagraph 4 of the same paragraph.

Therefore, regarding such right to claim damages, the ten-year extinctive prescription under Article 766(2) of the Civil Act (hereinafter “long-term extinctive prescription”) or Article 96(2) of the National Finance Act [the former Budget and Accounts Act (amended by Act No. 8050, Oct. 4, 2006; hereinafter the same shall apply].

(2) Article 96(2) of the Act does not apply to the five-year extinctive prescription under Article 96(2) (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2018Da233686, Nov. 14, 2019). 2. The lower court, citing the first instance judgment, recognized the Defendant’s liability for damages for the following reasons, and rejected the Defendant’s claim

The Plaintiffs are WW descendants who received the distribution of X-714 square meters prior to Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government among the instant T-dong land.

The judgment of accepting the claim for transfer registration of ownership against the Defendant was final and conclusive in the civil suit instituted by the person who received the allocation of the instant T-dong land (hereinafter “contributor”).

After that, the above final judgment is made on the basis of evidence collected by the defendant through illegal investigations by public officials belonging thereto.