1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against Plaintiff A, equivalent to the following amount ordered to be paid, shall be revoked.

1. In the first instance court’s trial scope, the plaintiffs claim for consolation money due to tort against the defendant, and the plaintiff A also claimed compensation for property equivalent to the lost income. The first instance court partly accepted the plaintiff’s claim for consolation money, dismissed the remainder of the plaintiff A’s claim for consolation money and the plaintiff’s claim for consolation money, and dismissed the plaintiff A’s claim for compensation for property equivalent to the lost income.

As to this part of the plaintiffs' claim for consolation money, the defendant appealed against the defendant, and therefore, the subject of this court's judgment is limited to the plaintiffs' claim for consolation money.

2. The reasoning of this part of the judgment of the court of first instance is that: (a) the Plaintiff C was born from the Plaintiff’s 6-3 to 4 of the part on “a recognized fact” under Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, with the exception of the deletion of the part. This part of the judgment is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. Judgment on the main defense of this case

A. The Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff A consented to the payment of compensation under the Act on the Restoration of Honor and Compensation to Persons Related to Democratization Movement (hereinafter “Redivatization Compensation Act”) and received living allowances, thereby establishing a judicial compromise on the entire damage suffered by the Plaintiff A pursuant to Article 18(2) of the Democratization Compensation Act.

Therefore, among the lawsuit of this case, the part of the plaintiff A's claim is unlawful because there is no benefit of protection of rights.

B. Article 18(2) of the Democratization Compensation Act provides that “where an applicant consents to the determination of payment of compensation, etc. under this Act, a judicial compromise under the Civil Procedure Act shall be deemed to have been established as to the damage incurred in relation to a democratization movement.” According to the description of evidence No. 10, and the fact-finding on the restoration of the honor of the persons related to the democratization movement of the first instance court and the Compensation Deliberation Committee (hereinafter “Compensation Deliberation Committee”).