1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the Plaintiff S in the judgment, including the claim expanded from the trial to the trial, is as follows:

1. Basic facts

A. At the time of the Korean War, at the time of the occurrence of the case of sacrificeing the civilian, there was a case of mass death in the Chungcheong Police Bureau, each regional police station, the Chungcheong District CIC, and the military police unit around July 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the “the case of the Chungcheong Korean National Reporting Association”) by the 183 news reporters, including AE, and the 183 news reporters, including AE, were under preliminary autopsy.

B. The Criminal Procedure Commission established pursuant to the Framework Act on the Settlement of History to Reconciliation the Truth and Reconciliation for the Truth and Reconciliation (hereinafter “Reconciliation Commission”) for the Truth and Reconciliation (hereinafter “Reconciliation Commission”) received an application from relevant persons to verify the truth, and conducted an investigation into the applicant and relevant witness, data investigation, field investigation, etc., and conducted a truth-finding on November 3, 2009.

The past History Settlement Commission rendered a decision to confirm the net A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, K, L, M, N,O, P, and Q as victims in the truth-finding process above.

(hereinafter referred to as “the sacrifers of this case”) C.

The plaintiffs in their personal relationship are bereaved families of the persons confirmed as victims in the truth-finding process as stated in the attached Table 2 and the “related relations” in the amount of claim and the amount of award.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's statements in Gap's 1 through 16, 36 through 38 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The judgment of the court on this safety defense is similar to the form and form of the above plaintiffs' seal affixed to the delegation letter submitted by the plaintiffs AF and AG attorney, and thus, it cannot be recognized that the above plaintiffs' genuine intent of delegation of lawsuit cannot be recognized. The defendant alleged the above plaintiffs' right of attorney.

According to the records, the plaintiff AF and AG are themselves, such as a copy of the passport or a copy of the identification card.