1. The defendant is about KRW 102,200,00 for the plaintiff A, KRW 6,923,076 for the plaintiff B, and KRW 4,615,384 for the plaintiff C and each of the said money.

1. Basic facts

A. On August 31, 1970, Plaintiff A resided in Japan after departure from Korea on or around August 31, 1970, and the period of stay expires and returned to Korea on September 9, 1977.

(2) On September 9, 197, the plaintiff A was investigated into the illegal confinement for 37 days from the date when the warrant of detention was issued and executed by the investigator in the Central Information Department without a warrant by the investigator in the Central Information Department at the Kimpo-public port of September 9, 197.

(3) The prosecutor indicted the Plaintiff A of the facts charged in the attached Form of violation of the National Security Act, violation of the public law, and violation of the public interest (hereinafter “instant facts charged”) against the Plaintiff as Seoul Criminal District Court 7Dahap835.

B. On April 7, 1978, the Seoul Criminal Court convicted the Defendant of all the charges, and sentenced the Defendant to 20 years of imprisonment and suspension of qualifications for 15 years.

(2) On July 28, 1978, both the Plaintiff A and the Prosecutor appealeded to Seoul High Court 78No639, and the said court rendered a 15-year imprisonment and suspension of qualifications against the Plaintiff A (hereinafter “the instant judgment”).

(3) Accordingly, the Plaintiff A appealed with the Supreme Court Decision 78Do2266, but on October 31, 1978, the final appeal was dismissed, and the instant judgment became final and conclusive.

(4) According to the instant judgment, Plaintiff A was provisionally released from Gwangju prison in 1989 after serving approximately 12 years and 3 months in the Gwangju prison, and the remaining term of the punishment was imposed on November 3, 1992.

C. (1) On October 22, 2010, Plaintiff A filed a petition for new trial on the instant judgment with Seoul High Court 2010No62, and the said court recognized that the investigator of the Central Information Division who investigated the instant case was illegal to have detained Plaintiff A on the prosecution without a warrant.

On the premise of this, the above court shall make a final judgment under Article 422 of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is evident that the five-year statute of limitations has expired for the illegal arrest and detention of the plaintiff A by the investigators of the Central Information Department.