A. The relationship between the parties (1) around March 30, 2015, Plaintiff A, Defendant D, and F were students attending the fifth grade and second grade of J Elementary School established and operated by Defendant Gyeonggi-do.

(2) Plaintiff B and C are the parents of Plaintiff A, Defendant E is the father of Defendant D, and Defendant G is the father of Defendant F.

(3) At the time of March 30, 2015, Defendant I was a teacher in the second half of the fifth grade of J elementary school, and Defendant H was the principal of the same elementary school.

B. (1) On March 30, 2015, at around 14:20 minutes prior to the completion of the class at around 10 minutes at the time of J Elementary School, Defendant F was pushed down Defendant D while Defendant F and D were faced with Defendant D, and Defendant F was faced with the Plaintiff A and the Plaintiff was faced with the face at the right reading center after the classroom (hereinafter “instant accident”).

(2) As a result of the instant accident, Plaintiff A suffered bodily injury, such as Defendant A’s face top and knenee knee, etc.

[Ground of Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 5, Eul evidence 1 to 3 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. As seen in Defendant D, E, F, and Determination on the instant accident, as seen in the foregoing, Defendant D, and E, the instant accident was caused by Defendant F, while Defendant F, who was in the face of Defendant D with Defendant D, and D, and Defendant F was in contact with Defendant D, and Defendant D was in contact with Defendant D, and the Plaintiff A, for which Defendant D was pushed down. Since it cannot be deemed that Defendant D had the intention or predictability on the occurrence of the instant accident, the Plaintiffs’ assertion that Defendant D, and E was liable for tort is without merit.

(2) Defendant F, G, and Defendant F are capable of changing their responsibility for their act at the time of the instant accident. Therefore, Defendant F, the Plaintiffs asserted that they are responsible for compensating for the damages suffered by the Plaintiffs due to the instant accident. However, according to Article 753 of the Civil Act, in a case where a minor inflicted damage on another person, the minor has no intelligence to change its responsibility for such act.