A. The Defendant: “Around December 2, 2014, at around 19:05, entered the 2nd head of the E (50 months at the time of the accident; hereinafter “victim”) where the Defendant had a duty of care to keep a door and walk in the door at the department store when entering the entrance. As such, even though the Defendant had a duty of care to care in the surrounding circumstances through the entrance glass, the Defendant was at least 50 weeks at the time of the mobile phone, while making a cell phone, and caused the Defendant to suffer from brain dusts, etc. necessary for the treatment of about 3 weeks at the time of the accident (hereinafter “accident”). Accordingly, the Defendant was prosecuted against the victim on the charge that the Defendant was convicted of the Defendant on April 26, 2016 (Seoul District Court Decision 2006Da165165, Apr. 26, 2016).

B. The Plaintiff is the mother of the victim.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 5, 21, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Occurrence and scope of liability for damages;

A. According to the facts of recognition above, the defendant is liable for damages suffered by the plaintiff as the mother of the victim, who caused the accident of this case.

B. (1) The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant should pay to the Plaintiff KRW 1,250,90 for tuition fees and teaching materials expenses, KRW 5,330,00 for state subsidies (the difference between the amount calculated by subtracting KRW 100,00 for raising allowances from KRW 290,00 for state subsidies), KRW 5,103,680 for flag treatment expenses, etc., KRW 6,800 for nursing expenses, KRW 30,00 for consolation money, KRW 30,000 for nursing expenses.

(2) (A) Determination is based on the following: (a) the Defendant’s tort, thereby causing a part of the property damage to the victim.