[1] In a case where a dead body is found not by a natural history but by a investigation agency’s determination as to the activities of the investigation prior to the commencement of the investigation and the commencement of the investigation is unlawful

[2] The case holding that in case where Gap's bereaved family members who died within the military belt filed a claim for damages against the State, the State is liable for damages to Gap's bereaved family members on the ground that since the military investigation agency's occupational duty, which did not take necessary measures such as thoroughly preserving the site, was in violation of the duty of the military investigation agency and did not make clear conclusion as to whether Gap's cause of death

[3] In a case where there was a de facto disability that could not objectively exercise rights before the expiration of the extinctive prescription, whether it is permissible for an obligor to claim the completion of the extinctive prescription (negative)

[4] The limits of discretion of the fact-finding court in calculating the amount of consolation money for mental suffering suffered by tort

[1] Article 2 (1) of the State Compensation Act, Articles 750 and 751 of the Civil Act / [2] Article 2 (1) of the State Compensation Act, Articles 750 and 751 of the Civil Act / [3] Articles 2, 162, 179, and 766 (1) of the Civil Act / [4] Article 751 of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2004Da14932 Decided December 7, 2006 (Gong2007Sang, 101) / [3/4] Supreme Court en banc Decision 2012Da202819 Decided May 16, 2013 (Gong2013Ha, 107) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 2013Da205341 Decided January 16, 2014

Plaintiff 1 and four others (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Cho Yong-hwan et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Republic of Korea (Law Firm, Kim & Lee LLC, Attorneys Kim Yong-hwan et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2010Na30166 decided August 22, 2013

All appeals by the Defendant against Plaintiffs 3, 4, and 5 are dismissed. All appeals by the Plaintiffs and appeals by the Defendant against Plaintiffs 1 and 2 are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against each party.

1. We examine the Defendant’s appeal against Plaintiffs 3, 4, and 5.

The final appeal is a claim for revocation or alteration of a judgment disadvantageous to himself/herself in favor of himself/herself, and the final appeal against the judgment below in favor of him/her is not allowed as there is no benefit of filing the final appeal (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da2996, Oct. 13, 201, etc.).

According to the records, while the court of first instance partially accepted the claims of Plaintiffs 3, 4, and 5, the court below revoked the part against the above plaintiffs among the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant, and dismissed all the above plaintiffs' claims. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the defendant against the above plaintiffs who won the whole winning judgment is unlawful as there is no benefit of appeal.

2. The plaintiffs' grounds of appeal are examined.

A. According to the main sentence of Article 2(1) of the former State Compensation Act (amended by Act No. 7584 of Jul. 13, 2005), when a public official intentionally or negligently causes damage to another person in violation of the statutes while performing his/her duties, the State compensates for such damage, and the burden of proving such damage is against a public official’s tort against the State. Therefore, in order for the Plaintiffs to claim damages against the Defendant due to Nonparty 1’s death, it shall be proved that Nonparty 1 caused the death of another public official’s unlawful performance of duties, such as a military unit

B. We examine whether Nonparty 1 was proved to have died of Nonparty 1 on the left chest and her head after being transferred to the left chest after being transferred from the top of the new wall headquarters on the date of the instant accident to the right chest by another unit.

(1) As seen above, there are statements made by Nonparty 2, Nonparty 3, and Nonparty 4, which are direct evidence of corresponding thereto, as well as the military unit belonging to Nonparty 1.

In a case where Nonparty 2 made a statement to the effect that Nonparty 1’s s/he appears to correspond with the above facts of his s/ her s/ her s/ her s/ her s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/).

Although Nonparty 3 also made a statement as seen above in the investigation of a question-finding, Nonparty 3 testified at the court of first instance that Nonparty 1 made such statement according to the investigator’s leading questioning that cited the other military unit’s statement in the investigation of a question-finding; according to the records, Nonparty 1 made a statement on the basis of Nonparty 3’s mere abstract confluence of questioning of the fact-finding of the accident to Nonparty 5, on the basis of Nonparty 3’s mere confluence of questioning of the fact-finding by Nonparty 1, the special investigation committee of the Ministry of National Defense. In light of this, it is difficult to believe that Nonparty 3’s statement on the background-finding of the accident is also difficult.

In addition, the non-party 4 also made a statement to the effect that it corresponds to the above fact of the non-party 1's murder, but it is difficult to recognize the credibility of the statement, because it is merely a statement of the other person in the situation where the non-party 1 committed suicide with three guns M16 and the non-party 1 knew of the death or death of the accident.

(2) According to the legal scholars' alternative opinion, the color difference between the upper part of the chest was rather than due to the difference in the time of occurrence, and the upper part of the upper upper part of the chest was caused by a sponser and the upper part of the upper part of the lower part of the lower part of the lower part of the lower part of the lower part of the lower part of the lower part of the lower part of the lower part of the lower part of the lower part of the lower part of the lower part of the lower part of the lower part of the lower part of the lower part of the lower part of the lower part of the lower part of the lower part of the lower part of the lower part of the lower part of the lower part of the lower part of the lower part of the lower part of the lower part of the lower part of the lower part of the lower part of the lower part of the lower part of the lower part of the lower part of the lower part of the lower part of the lower part of the lower part of the lower part of the lower part of the lower part of the lower part of the lower part of the lower part.

(3) There seems to be consistent with the above facts of Nonparty 1’s murder even when multiple unit members stated that they only 2 am in the morning on the date of the instant accident. However, according to the Mascopic test conducted by the Mascopium, in a case where a group of unit members am in distressed with a military uniform in a swine machine, there was a result that other people in other locations could not have taken the total mind. Thus, it cannot be ruled out that the possibility that Nonparty 1 committed only two am in total by having a group of am in the course of committing the instant accident, one of which was committed by the group of unit members, and one of which was committed by the group of unit members, cannot be viewed as supporting the above facts of murder by Nonparty 1.

(4) Ultimately, it is difficult to deem that the above Nonparty 1’s occurrence of suicide was proven.

C. We examine whether the non-party 1 was proved to have suffered a total injury of both breasts on the body of the non-party 1 after the non-party 1 died after being killed by other unit members at the center of the new wall headquarters on the date of the occurrence of the accident in this case, and transferred the body to the morning.

(1) Since the field photograph attached to the military police officer’s investigation record does not seem to show the bloodtain or frame scattered around the body of Nonparty 1, there may be questions whether Nonparty 1 suffered a total hair in a place other than head, and then transferred to waste oil. However, the military police officer’s investigation record states that “the body is scattered within 30 to 1m from the two sides of the deceased person’s death,” and Nonparty 6 stated that “the body of Nonparty 1 was scattered over the body of the body of the deceased, with a large and small size of the five frameworks scattered above the body of the body of the deceased.” If the body of the chest was found first, it is probable that the body of Nonparty 1 might have decreased due to the total length of head’s hair, and the body of Nonparty 1 could not be easily ruled out as a place where the body of Nonparty 1 was removed from the body of the deceased, because the body of Nonparty 1 could not be easily 1’s body away from the body of the body of the deceased.

(2) 더욱이 소외 1의 머리의 총상부위뿐만 아니라 양쪽 가슴의 총상부위에도 생활반응이 존재하는 것으로 보이고 부검의 소외 7이 ‘소외 1의 사체의 왼쪽 흉강 내에는 300㏄~400㏄의 피가 고여 있는 것을 보았는데 이는 꽤 많은 양으로서 심장이 정지된 후에는 흐를 수 없는 양이다’고 진술한 점도 위와 같은 소외 1의 타살사실에 배치된다. 또한 다수의 부대원들이 이 사건 사고 발생일 오전에 2발의 총성만을 들었다고 진술하고 있는 사정도 앞서 본 바와 같은 이유로 위와 같은 소외 1의 타살사실을 뒷받침하지 못한다고 보아야 한다.

(3) Therefore, it is difficult to deem that the above Nonparty 1’s suicide was proven.

(4) Furthermore, in light of the fact that Nonparty 1 suffered the body of Nonparty 1 on the ground of field pictures attached to the investigation records of a military police unit, and it is difficult to view that the body was transferred to the body of a deceased oil, and that many unit members stated that the body was taken up only two parts of the body on the morning on the day of the occurrence of the instant accident, it is difficult to recognize that Nonparty 1 had already moved to the body of a deceased oil after having died of the body on both chest and head on both chests and head, and then the group turned out three parts for the purpose of disguiseding the body of the deceased.

D. Other circumstances should not be deemed as having led to the death of Nonparty 1 for the following reasons.

(1) The statements made by Nonparty 8, Nonparty 9, Nonparty 10, Nonparty 11, and Nonparty 12, etc., to the effect that Nonparty 1’s body or the victim was found at the company headquarters, are not believed in full view of the fact that such statements were made according to the investigator’s leading examination, etc. that cited the temporary confusion with the waste oil or the statements made by other military unit members, and that such statements were not inconsistent with each other or they were reversed later.

(2) Among the senior officers and soldiers belonging to Nonparty 1, there are persons who made a statement, such as receiving a report on the situation of a firearms accident from the new wall on the date of the instant accident to the time of attendance before the time of attendance. Thus, there is doubt as to whether Nonparty 1 had already suffered total damages due to the date of the instant accident. However, such statements are contrary to the report of important cases to the chief of the military police commander's association, the report of major cases to the military police commander of the military police commander's military police officer's office, and the notification of major cases to the military police commander's military police officer's office, and the military police officer's call to the military police officer's office's office's office's office's office's office's office's office's office's office's office's office's office's office's office's office's office's office's office's office's office', and thus, it is difficult to see that the report's office's office's office's office's office's office's office's office's office's office's office.

(3) It can be seen that Nonparty 1’s left hand and the place of inspection are faced with an upper part of the skin, and a large quantity of exhausters around it. However, it cannot be seen that Nonparty 1’s wife did not know what circumstances it occurred, and thus, it cannot be deemed that Nonparty 1’s murder was supported by Nonparty 1.

(4) Furthermore, there is room for doubt as to whether Nonparty 1 did not manipulate the case as committing suicide after the end of the accident, even though Nonparty 1 had already sustained the total amount on the new wall or bees on the date of the accident in this case, even though Nonparty 1 had already been in total on the wall or bees, etc., on the survey report regarding Nonparty 13’s waters and the process of discovering the coal of the military police unit, and on the situation where the total part on the written request for appraisal concerning firearms and ammunition was revised.

However, it is difficult to say that Nonparty 13 made a false albane by conducting patrol over the situation of the GOP boundary service at the time of actual occurrence of the situation that he made a false albane and made a false statement at around 13:00, not during the patrol time. It is not reasonable that the person who operates the site to conceal the fact that he suffered the total amount of the accident did not know of the total number of the accident, and it is also natural that Nonparty 13 did not ask Nonparty 1 of the total known number of the accident at the site. In light of these facts, Nonparty 13 attempted to conceal Nonparty 1’s murder, rather than to conceal Nonparty 1’s murder, it is difficult for Nonparty 13 to expect Nonparty 1 to take advantage of the fact that it was difficult for Nonparty 1 to take advantage of the above circumstances, including Nonparty 1’s gross possibility of cleaning at the KOP’s general order and Nonparty 1 to take account of the fact that Nonparty 1 did not have any physical cleaning at the time of the accident. In addition, Nonparty 1’s body or Nonparty 18.

In addition, in light of the fact that, if a military police officer attempted to manipulate the process of the instant accident, it appears that Nonparty 13 was either aware of Nonparty 13’s attempt to manipulate the facts or that only 20,000 carbon has been discovered in the military police police police police police officer’s investigation records, and that it appears that the military police officer prepared another military police officer’s written request for assessment of weapons as a third party and then, if any, would have been processed by means of correcting the document instead of preparing a new document, it cannot be concluded that Nonparty 1 attempted to conceal the fact of murder.

E. Meanwhile, in light of the following circumstances, it is difficult to readily conclude that Nonparty 1 voluntarily committed suicide at the end of the day of the instant accident by launching three guns at the end of the day on which the instant accident occurred.

(1) Based on the fact that all of Nonparty 1’s life reaction appears to exist in the upper part of Nonparty 1’s general top part, it may be acknowledged that Nonparty 1 committed shotly suicide to oneself. However, in the case of shoots on the body, it is doubtful whether Nonparty 1 committed shotly suicide on the top of the upper part, on the ground that Nonparty 1 was living in both the upper part of Nonparty 1’s general parts on the ground that it is difficult to readily conclude that there was a living reaction on the top of the upper part, without any string test on the recovered tissue, on the ground that blood would have been shotly recovered until the blood was recovered.

(2) Most of the law scholars voluntarily present their opinion that it is not impossible for Nonparty 1 to commit suicide at the chest 16 guns to commit suicide. However, it is doubtful whether Nonparty 1 was able to commit suicide at the center between the lower end of both sides and the upper end of both sides while driving the chest in front and rear the chest. Thus, it is questionable whether Nonparty 1 was able to commit suicide at the center of both sides. Even if it is possible, it cannot be denied that Nonparty 1 was natural influence. In addition, it is difficult to raise doubt as to whether Nonparty 1 committed suicide at this end. In addition, it is inevitable for Nonparty 1 to form the upper part of the chest 1 to be higher than the upper part of the upper part without having a depth in the front part of the body. In this case, in light of whether the upper part of the chest 1 was a part of the upper part of the upper part of the upper part and the upper part of the upper part of the upper part of the upper part of the upper part of the upper part of the upper part of the upper part of the upper part of the lower part.

(3) Furthermore, it is doubtful whether Nonparty 1 could be deemed that there was a strong suicide motive that Nonparty 1 voluntarily launched three guns or launched to commit suicide. In light of the fact that Nonparty 1 was an accident in the instant case before Nonparty 1 worked as the front order of Nonparty 13, Nonparty 1 was scheduled to take the next leave, and Nonparty 1 was an incidental officer’s statement that Nonparty 1 was preparing to take the leave, such as taking the leave from the morning on the day when the instant accident occurred, and that Nonparty 1 was not found even after Nonparty 1 was prepared, it is difficult to accept that Nonparty 1 was in the first Ma16 Guns on the ground that Nonparty 1 was preparing for the next day leave, and that Nonparty 1 was facing Nonparty 1’s camping on both chests and her head.

(4) In addition, for the reasons as seen above, the question points on the investigation report on the process of Nonparty 13’s suspicious act and the discovery of the carbon of the military police unit, and the situation where the total number of parts on the written request for appraisal on firearms and ammunition was modified to be received, etc., on the basis of which Nonparty 1 had already suffered total loss on the new wall or bed, on the date of the instant accident, it cannot be a ground for recognizing that Nonparty 1 had already sustained total loss on the wall or bed, but it may be doubtful that Nonparty 1 had committed three shots after the end of the accident.

바. 결국 소외 1이 타살되었다는 점에 부합하는 듯한 증거들과 이를 의심하게 하는 정황들만으로는 소외 1이 소속 부대원 등 다른 공무원의 위법한 직무집행으로 인하여 사망에 이르게 되었다는 사실이 증명되었다고 보기 어렵고, 그렇다고 하여 소외 1이 이 사건 사고 발생일 오전에 폐유류고에서 스스로 소총 3발을 발사하여 자살하였다고 단정하여 소외 1의 타살 가능성을 전적으로 배제할 수도 없다. 특히 이 사건 사고 발생 당시 소외 1의 사체가 발견된 폐유류고 부근에 혈흔과 골편 등이 산재하여 있었는지, 그 밖에 소외 1의 사체 옆에 놓여 있던 총기에 혈흔이나 흙 등 소외 1의 사망원인을 판별할 단서가 있었는지, 소외 1의 왼손에 있던 발적흔에 대한 절개 결과 판명될 수 있는 발생원인 및 부검 당시 소외 1의 위장 내에 남아 있었다는 700㏄ 가량의 내용물을 근거로 추정할 수 있는 소외 1의 사망시각과 그 밖의 정황사실 등에 관하여 군수사기관의 면밀한 조사가 이루어지지 아니한 상황에서는, 소외 1이 다른 부대원이 쏜 총에 맞아 사망하였다는 사실을 인정하기 어렵고 그 반대로 소외 1이 자살한 사실을 인정하기도 어렵다.

G. Although the decision of the court below was inappropriate, the decision of the court below was just in its conclusion that dismissed the part of damages caused by the death of Nonparty 1 among the plaintiffs' claims, and it did not err by violating the law of logic and experience and exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, which affected the conclusion of

3. The defendant's grounds of appeal are examined.

A. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2

(1) In a case where a dead body is found without a natural history, in light of the purport and purpose of the Criminal Procedure Act and other relevant Acts and subordinate statutes that granted authority to an investigation agency to examine whether an investigation activity prior to the commencement of an investigation and the subsequent commencement of an investigation is illegal, the investigation agency’s exercise of authority to take necessary measures is considerably unreasonable, or the investigation agency’s failure to take necessary measures is considerably unreasonable in light of the empirical and logical rules (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da14932, Dec. 7, 2006).

(2) The lower court deemed that the claims filed by Plaintiffs 1 and 2 include taking responsibility for the considerable fault investigation by the military investigation agency, which did not sufficiently investigate the causes and circumstances of the death of Nonparty 1 who died in the military team, and did not inquire into the causes and circumstances of the death of Nonparty 1, who died in the military team, and caused suspicions as to whether Nonparty 1 died or

On the premise of this, the lower court determined that: (a) although the military police officer did not conduct any investigation into connection with the instant accident because the date of the instant accident was prohibited from drinking, it did not conduct any such investigation; (b) whether Nonparty 1 died at the scene; (c) although the military police officer’s investigation record was written only on the ground that Nonparty 1’s body was scattered at 30 cm or 1 cm away from the front section of the military police station; (d) the military police officer’s investigation record was not accompanied by a photograph; and (e) the military police officer’s investigation record was not conducted on the spot to find out the cause of the instant accident, and thus, it was difficult to find out whether the body was scattered around the scene without any further observation of the fact that the military police officer’s body was found to have contained in the front section of the incident; and (e) the military police officer’s investigation record was conducted on the front section of the scene, and thus, it was difficult to see that the military police officer’s body was found to have been found to have contained in the front or unexed.

(3) Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, in this case where there is a clear fact that it is difficult to entirely eliminate the possibility of the non-party 1's murder, the military police officer's failure to take necessary measures such as the original adjudication in investigating the causes and circumstances of the death of the non-party 1 as a military investigation agency can be deemed to have reached the extent that it is considerably unreasonable or considerably unreasonable in light of the empirical rule and logical rules. Therefore, if a military police officer took necessary measures, even if it could not ascertain the substantial truth of the accident of this case, it can be said that the act of violation of his duty cannot be seen as making it impossible to make a clear conclusion as to whether the non-party 1's death was caused by the death or by the suicide. Thus, the defendant is liable to compensate for damages caused by the act of the non-party 1 and the above plaintiffs' claim includes the purport of seeking compensation for mental suffering.

In the same purport, the court below is justified in finding the defendant's liability for damages against the plaintiff 1 and 2, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the violation of the principle of pleading, the illegality of the investigation agency's judgment, or causation, as alleged in

B. Ground of appeal No. 3

(1) The extinctive prescription does not proceed from the time when a right becomes objectively created and is able to exercise the right, and does not proceed during the period during which the right is not possible. Here, “non-exercise of the right” refers to a case where there is a disability in the exercise of the right, for instance, the passage of the period or the non-performance of the conditions, etc., and where it is practically difficult to exercise the right. However, the exercise of the defense right based on the extinctive prescription is subject to the control of the principle of good faith and the prohibition of abuse of rights, which are the major principle of the Civil Act, and thus, the obligor’s assertion for the completion of the extinctive prescription cannot be allowed as an abuse of rights against the principle of good faith in special circumstances where it is impossible

Meanwhile, even in cases where there exists an objective obstacle that makes it impossible to expect the creditor to exercise his/her right as above, the obligor’s defense of extinctive prescription may be prevented only within a reasonable period from exercising his/her right from the time when such obstacle is terminated. Whether the right can be deemed to be exercised within a reasonable period should be determined by comprehensively taking into account various circumstances, including the relationship between the obligee and the obligor, the cause of the claim for damages, the cause of the obligee’s right to claim damages, the cause for delaying the obligee’s exercise of right, and the progress from the time when the obligee filed a lawsuit for damages. However, since the extinctive prescription system is based on the principle of trust and good faith as to the achievement of legal stability and the remedy for difficulty in proof, denying the validity of the statute of limitations in light of the principle of trust and good faith should be very exceptional. Therefore, the “reasonable period” of the exercise of right should be limited to a short period equivalent to the suspension of prescription under the Civil Act, barring any special circumstance, and in particular, even in cases where it is inevitable to extend the period, it should not exceed three years (3.).

(2) According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the record, immediately after the accident of this case occurred on April 2, 1984, the military police officer announced the result of investigation that Nonparty 1 committed suicide; the President's apology, established under the Special Act on Finding the Truth of Literature History, conducted a broad investigation of the accident of this case from 2000 to the military police officer's investigation; the investigation was conducted on August 20, 202; the final investigation was conducted on September 10, 2002; the defendant's Ministry of National Defense established the special investigation team on August 26, 2002; the investigation was conducted on November 28, 2002; and the investigation was conducted on November 28, 2002 by Nonparty 1; and the investigation was conducted on September 10, 2006, the plaintiff's subsequent investigation was conducted on September 14, 2006; and the plaintiff's further investigation was conducted on November 28, 2002.

Examining these facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, there was an objective obstacle that the above plaintiffs could not expect the exercise of their rights until the final investigation results were announced on June 28, 2004 due to the publication of conflicting findings of investigation conducted by the defendant's affiliated agencies, and the above plaintiffs filed a lawsuit for damages claim of this case within a reasonable period from the time such obstacle was terminated. Thus, the defendant's assertion for the completion of extinctive prescription against the above plaintiffs' claims for damages constitutes an abuse of rights against the principle of good faith and thus, it cannot be permitted.

Although there are parts inappropriate in the judgment of the court below, the decision of the court below is just in its conclusion that rejected the defendant's defense of extinctive prescription, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there is no error of law as to extinctive prescription or abuse of rights, or

C. Regarding ground of appeal No. 4

(1) As to the amount of consolation money for emotional distress suffered by tort, the fact-finding court may determine it at its discretion by taking into account various circumstances. However, it does not mean that a judge’s discretion is permissible to calculate consolation money, but it is necessary to calculate the amount that can be consistent with the times and the general legal sentiment. As such, the discretion held by the fact-finding court has the limitation that it shall not be calculated consolation money that clearly goes against the ideology of fair sharing of damages and the principle of equity (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2012Da202819, May 16, 2013).

(2) The lower court determined the amount of consolation money for emotional distress suffered by Plaintiffs 1 and 2 in this case as a considerable amount than the consolation money recognized in other military literature cases where the opportunity to discover the truth of the death accident or reasonable expectation is practically deprived of the opportunity to do so due to an investigation by the military investigation agency. It is reasonable to view the lower court’s calculation of consolation money as somewhat inappropriate, since it is difficult to view the fact that it is difficult to guarantee interested parties’ participation or surveillance in the process of investigating the accident in the military, which is the reason for considering the calculation of consolation money, and that access to the evidence or witness is not possible without the cooperation of the military forces compared to the other military literature cases.

However, according to the reasoning of the judgment below and the records, the military police officer, who is the military investigation agency at the time of the accident, concluded that Non-party 1 committed suicide by failing to take necessary measures against his duty, and Non-party 1's bereaved family members were requested to conduct a re-inspection on the reasons and circumstances of Non-party 1's death several times, but the Army Criminal Investigation Division and the Army Headquarters's Law Office maintained the above conclusion of the military police unit through a formal re-inspection only. ② As a result, it has been 16 years or more until the investigation of the bill of questions was commenced in 200, or the opportunity for Non-party 1's bereaved family members to know the truth was actually obstructed; ③ The main reason why Non-party 1's death was controversial with the reason and circumstances of the death of the military police unit, ④ The government agency conducted a long-term duplicate investigation and announced the research results in conflict with other general military police officers's duty, but it seems that there were no doubtss about non-party 1's mental suffering compared to other cases.

Examining these circumstances in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the lower court did not err in exceeding the bounds of the discretion of the fact-finding court as to the calculation of consolation money, by calculating consolation money which clearly goes against the ideology of fair sharing of damages and the principle of equity. Therefore, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, it cannot be said that there was an error of law

4. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals by the Defendant against Plaintiffs 3, 4, and 5 are dismissed. All appeals by the Plaintiffs and appeals by the Defendant against Plaintiffs 1 and 2 are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against each party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Jo Hee-de (Presiding Justice)