A. At around July 30, 2013, E, the Defendants’ ASEAN suggested that the Plaintiff, a juvenile from home, who had been staying in F, G, and H, will be leap, and F, G, and H accepted this, and around 23:00 of the same day, E, F, G, and H had the Plaintiff drink alcohol at the community center located in E, F, G, and H, and H, respectively.

B. F exceeded the Plaintiff’s panty, panty, and broding, G, and H, together with the Plaintiff’s chest, fright the Plaintiff’s chest, and E divided the Plaintiff’s arms and legs against G, H, and H, and frighted the Plaintiff’s arms and legs against the Plaintiff’s resistance, and f, G, and E, by committing sexual intercourse once with each other, respectively.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, each entry in Gap evidence 1 through 6 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above recognition of the liability for damages, E, together with F, H, and G, was physically and mentally suffering from the Plaintiff by rapeing the Plaintiff collectively.

If there is a proximate causal relation with the violation of duty by the supervisor, even if a minor is held liable for tort on his/her own due to his/her ability to take responsibility, the supervisor shall be liable for damages as a general tort.

(See Supreme Court Decision 93Da60588 delivered on August 23, 1994). According to the above evidence, E was dependent solely on the parents in economic terms, since E was under the care and supervision of 17 years of age or under the care and supervision of his/her parents, and thus, E was obligated to protect and supervise his/her children E, a child, by day, so that he/she does not commit any unlawful act such as sexual assault against others collectively.

Nevertheless, E neglects this and prevents the harmful act as seen above against the plaintiff.