Around December 21, 2012, Defendant G (hereinafter “Defendant G support center”) entrusted the “I Childcare Center” located at H (hereinafter “instant childcare center”) by Defendant F, D, and E (hereinafter “instant childcare center”) and concluded each employment contract with Defendant F, D, and E, and Defendant F served as the director of the instant childcare center, Defendant D, and E as infant care teachers.

Plaintiff

B and C’s children, the Plaintiff A, a Jins, was financed by the Seocho Heafins of the Child Care Center in this case (2 years of age).

Plaintiff

At around 09:50 on June 30, 2014, Defendant D, a teacher in infant care in A, changed his face to a hand floor on the ground that the said Plaintiff did not know the reason for the Plaintiff’s eating of livering in the classroom, and she did not go beyond the floor.

Then, Defendant D, who was placed on the floor of the Plaintiff A, made the reasons for putting the Plaintiff’s ear on each side of the Plaintiff A and kid them, and these actions continued for 5 minutes until the said Plaintiff’s answer. Accordingly, the said Plaintiff’s blood was generated on each side below the said Plaintiff’s return.

At the time, Defendant E was in service in the same classroom because he divided Defendant D into half of the infants of Defendant D and the shot leafs, and did not stop until the report is completed.

[Ground of recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap 1 through 5 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul 1 through 3, Eul 1 through 4, Eul 4, and defendant D and Eul - according to the facts of recognition as above, defendant D's above behavior constitutes tort against the plaintiffs as child abuse beyond the degree of affected land.

In addition, Defendant E has a duty to report on child abuse even if it is not a Plaintiff A’s fence, and to refrain from the above abuse committed in the same class as a child care teacher in a position to protect infants and children in fact, but in violation of this duty.