1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 57,644,00 for Plaintiff A; (b) KRW 20,000,000 for Plaintiff C, D, E, and F; and (c) KRW 5,00,000 for each of them.

1. Basic facts

A. Plaintiff A’s conviction 1) Plaintiff A’s Emergency Measure No. 9 (Presidential Emergency Measure No. 9, May 13, 1975; hereinafter “Emergency Measure No. 9”) for the national security and the protection of public order.

(2) On December 29, 1975, the above court found the Defendant guilty of all the charges against Plaintiff A on December 29, 1975 and sentenced a suspended sentence of three years and suspension of qualification for one year.

3) Plaintiff A lodged an appeal (Seoul High Court 76No990, Seoul High Court 76No990) on the grounds of mistake of facts and unfair sentencing. On December 14, 1978, the Seoul High Court, the appellate court rejected Plaintiff A’s assertion of mistake of facts and the prosecutor’s assertion of unfair sentencing, and sentenced Plaintiff A’s suspension of execution two years and suspension of qualification for eight months, and the above judgment (hereinafter “Ruling on review”).

(B) On December 22, 1978, the lower court became final and conclusive on December 22, 1978. (B) The Plaintiff of a new judgment filed a petition for retrial with the Seoul High Court 201Nono. 14 regarding the judgment subject to a retrial on April 24, 2013, and subsequently rendered a decision of non-guilty on June 27, 2013 (hereinafter “new judgment”).

The Prosecutor was sentenced to a judgment. The Prosecutor appealed to the Supreme Court Decision 2013Do8366, but the Supreme Court dismissed the Prosecutor’s final appeal on December 12, 2013, and the said new judgment became final and conclusive by dismissing the Prosecutor’s final appeal. The grounds for new judgment are as follows: (i) Emergency Measure No. 9, which violates the Emergency Measure No. 9, infringes on the fundamental rights of the people guaranteed by the Constitution by excessively restricting the freedom and rights of the people beyond the limits for the purpose of failing

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