The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. As to ground of appeal Nos. 1 and part of ground of appeal No. 3

A. The court below rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion that D and C are liable for joint tort with E in violation of their duty of supervision over E, a child, was insufficient to recognize that D violated their duty of supervision over E as a person with parental authority, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

Examining the record in light of the relevant legal principles, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the violation of supervisory obligations against the minors

B. The reasons in the written judgment include, to the extent that the text of the judgment can be recognized as being justifiable, the judgment on the party’s allegations and other means of offence and defense should be indicated, and there is no need to determine all the parties’ allegations or means of offence and defense (see Article 208(2) of the Civil Procedure Act). Even if the specific judgment on the party’s allegations is not indicated in the written judgment, it cannot be deemed an omission of judgment if it can be known that the allegations were quoted or rejected in light of the overall purport of the reasons in the judgment, and even if the decision was not actually made, if it is obvious that the assertion would be rejected

(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Da218 Decided July 10, 2008). In this case, the judgment of the court below is deemed to include the determination of the Plaintiff’s assertion of the breach of supervisory duty by C, who is a person with parental authority. Even if the judgment was omitted, it is obvious that the Plaintiff’s assertion would be rejected as seen earlier. Thus, the ground of appeal pointing out the omission of judgment by the court below is without merit.

2. Ground of appeal No. 2