Plaintiff 1 and five others (Law Firm Barun, Attorneys Park Ha-ju, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea

November 3, 2011

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2010Gahap60924 Decided April 29, 2011

1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

A. The Defendant shall pay to Plaintiff 1 2,00,000, and to Plaintiff 2,000,000,000, and to Plaintiff 3,4,5, and 6 each of the above amounts, 50,000,000 won per annum from November 3, 2011 to November 24, 201, and 5% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

B. All remaining claims of the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. Of the total litigation costs, 60% is borne by the Plaintiffs, and the remainder is borne by the Defendant, respectively.

3. Paragraph 1. A. The provisional execution may be effected.

Purport of claim

The defendant shall pay 1.2 billion won to the plaintiff 1, 40 million won to the plaintiff 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 each amount of KRW 100 million per annum to the plaintiff 1 at the rate of 20% per annum from the closing date of argument at the appellate court to the day of full payment (the plaintiff has reduced part of the claim).

Purport of appeal

Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiffs seeking payment in the following subparagraphs shall be revoked. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs 1, 90 million won, 30 million won to the plaintiffs 3, 4, 5, and 6, respectively, 80 million won and 20% interest per annum to the day of full payment from the date of the closing of argument in the court of first instance to the day of full payment.

The defendant shall revoke the part against the defendant among the judgment of the court of first instance. The plaintiffs' claims corresponding to the above revocation are all dismissed.

1. Presumed factual basis

2. The plaintiffs' assertion on the grounds of the claim

3. Occurrence of liability for damages;

The court's reasoning concerning each of the above parts is as follows. The part of the court's reasoning is as follows: "the consolation money from 4 billion won to 10 billion won," and the part of "the consolation money from 8 to 10 of the same part of the judgment of the court of first instance," "the consolation money from 1.5 billion won to 2 of the plaintiff 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, respectively. The defendant is obligated to pay 1.2 billion won to 2 of the plaintiff 1, 4.4 billion won to 3, 4, 5, 6 of the judgment of the court of first instance, and 1.4 billion won to 3, 44, 5, and 6 of the compensation money from 30 billion won to 4.5 billion won to 1.5 billion won to 4.5 billion won to 2,0000 won to 2,0000 won to 2,0000 won to 2,000 won to 30.1.

4. Scope of liability for damages

(a) Grounds for consideration;

The above facts are as follows: (a) Plaintiff 1 was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for not more than three years, including advisers, at the security headquarters up to 10 months of illegal confinement; and (b) Plaintiff 1 was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for not more than one year; (c) Nonparty 20 was the witness of the first instance court; and (d) the witness of this court and the head of the Central Security Office for the purpose of the pleading as a whole; and (e) Defendant was found to have been guilty of non-guilty charges for not more than 10 years since 16th of May 197, 197; and (e) Defendant was found to have failed to receive consolation money for not more than 31,035,938 won since 26th of December 31, 1981; and (e) Defendant was also obligated to receive consolation money for not more than 10 years since 10th of October 17, 201.

(b) the amount recognized;

o Plaintiff 1: 450 million won

o Plaintiff 2, the wife: 20 million won

o Plaintiffs 3, 4, 5, 6, each of whom is a child: KRW 50 million

C. As to the defendant's assertion that the recognition of consolation money exceeding the maximum limit of the State Compensation Act is illegal

The defendant asserts that it should not exceed the maximum amount of consolation money under Article 3 (5) of the State Compensation Act and Article 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the State Compensation Act.

However, Article 3 of the State Compensation Act provides only one of the criteria for the payment of compensation to the Compensation Council, and thereby does not limit the repayment of compensation (see Supreme Court Decision 69Da1203 delivered on January 29, 1970). The above argument is without merit.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 1 450 million won, 200 million won to the plaintiff 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 each of the above amounts, and 50 million won from November 3, 2011, which is the date of the closing of argument in the trial, to the extent that the defendant claims against the plaintiff 1 about the existence and scope of the obligation, 5% per annum under the Civil Act, and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment. Accordingly, the plaintiffs' claim in this case is justified within the above recognition scope, and the remaining claims are dismissed as there is no reason. Accordingly, the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the court of first instance that it is decided as per Disposition.

Judges Hong-tae (Presiding Judge) Kim Jin-Jon Chang