A. On August 30, 2015, Defendant F and G: (a) instigated Plaintiff A and H to fighting with each other; (b) caused Plaintiff A and H to fighting in accordance with the said teachers; (c) the Plaintiff’s face was taken by drinking and learning so that H would go beyond the Plaintiff’s floor; and (d) caused Plaintiff A to suffer bodily injury, such as an injury on the part of the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the instant injury”).

(hereinafter “instant accident”). (b)

Defendant F and G were sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor from the Busan District Court on May 3, 2016 (Seoul District Court 2016Dadan201), and appealed from Busan District Court 2016No1865, but was sentenced to dismissal on August 25, 2016. The above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

C. Plaintiff B and C are the parents of Plaintiff A, Defendant D and E are the parents of H, and H was the first student at the time of the instant accident.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Gap evidence 4-1 through 16, Gap evidence 5-1 through 8, Gap evidence 6, and 10, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to Defendant F and G, Defendant F and G have instigated H to cause the Plaintiff to inflict the instant injury, and thus, they are obliged to compensate the Plaintiffs for the damages caused by the instant accident.

B. Even if part of the minor's liability against Defendant D and E is held liable for tort, if there is a proximate causal relation with the minor's breach of duty by the supervisor, the supervisor shall be held liable for damages as a general tort.

(See Supreme Court Decision 93Da60588 delivered on August 23, 1994). He was incapable of changing his responsibility for his act with a middle student of 13 years old and 9 months old at the time of the instant accident, and H was in a relationship of protection and supervision, such as where the parties concerned are not in dispute, or where the parties concerned are dependent on the economic aspect, with a middle student of 13 years old and 9 months old. He was in a relationship of protection and supervision, such as where he was in a relationship between Defendant D, E and his residence, or dependent on the economic aspect.