A. Defendants B (N) and I (O) of the parties are students who were enrolled in H elementary schools located in G in Mapo-si G (hereinafter “instant school”). The Appointor J and the Plaintiff are the parents of the Appointor I, and the Defendant C and D are the parents of the Defendant B.

B. At around 10:00 on May 27, 2013, the selector of the instant accident, I suffered bodily injury in excess of the degree of sports classes in the instant school curriculum.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). [Grounds for recognition] There is no dispute, entry in Gap’s 2 through 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination as to the claim against the defendant B, C, and D

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) around 10:00 on May 27, 2013, Defendant B: (a) went beyond 10,00 after the designated person I who was under sports classes in the instant school curriculum; (b) thereby, the designated person I suffered injury on the left side and right edge. From May 27, 2013, Defendant B spent KRW 3,308,014 in total with the expenses incurred by the designated person I for the injury incurred from May 27, 2013, KRW 1,170,00 in transportation expenses, including KRW 3,308,014, 5,460,000 in total; and (c) Defendant B paid KRW 1,170,000 in transportation expenses for the said tort committed by the designated person I.

(2) Defendant C and D, who have been negligent in performing their duty to supervise Defendant B and Defendant B, who is a minor, who is a minor in the capacity to compensate for the injury to Selection (or, in the event that Defendant B is not responsible, the liability for damages under Article 755(1) of the Civil Act) and Defendant C and D, who have been negligent in performing their duty to supervise Defendant B and Defendant B, who is a minor in the capacity to compensate for the injury to Selection, have a duty to compensate for property and mental damage suffered by the Plaintiff and the designated parties due to the aforementioned tort committed against Selection. (2) Defendant B, C and D’s assertion that Defendant B had not been pushed over the designated parties I on May 27, 2013, on this premise, is without merit.

B. We examine the circumstances leading up to the occurrence of the damages liability of this case 1, and Gap.