A. On March 2018, Plaintiff C (I) and Defendant D (J) were original children using the “L childcare center” in the operation of the G care center located in Seo-gu, Seoan-gu, Seoan-gu, Seocheon-si, and H were childcare teachers in charge of Plaintiff C and Defendant D.

Plaintiff

A and B are the parents of Plaintiff C, and Defendant E and F are the parents of Defendant D.

B. Around March 15, 2018, Defendant D brought to toys in the instant childcare center classroom, and brought the Plaintiff’s toy again from the Plaintiff C with the wheels to view the above Plaintiff’s right side by hand, thereby having multi-faceted to the Plaintiff.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). [The ground for recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1-1 and Eul evidence 1-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. The facts that Defendant D intentionally committed a harmful act against Plaintiff C regarding the claim against Defendant D are as seen earlier.

However, in order for a minor to bear tort liability on his own (Article 753 of the Civil Act). The above defendant is merely an infant who is 2 years old and 10 months old at the time of the accident in this case, and cannot be deemed to have an intelligence to change his responsibility.

Therefore, Defendant D’s defense that was not liable for damages of the plaintiffs due to the absence of responsibility at the time of the accident of this case is reasonable, and the plaintiffs’ claims against Defendant D are without merit.

3. Determination as to the claims against Defendant E and F

A. (i) A person who is legally obligated to supervise an incompetent person responsible for damages shall be liable for damages inflicted on a third party unless he/she proves that he/she has not neglected his/her duty of supervision.

(Article 755(1) of the Civil Act. As seen earlier, Defendant D, a person under responsibility, intentionally committed a harmful act against Plaintiff C. Thus, Defendant E and F, a person with parental authority over Defendant D, are liable to compensate the Plaintiffs for the damages caused by the instant accident, unless it is proved that he/she did not neglect his/her duty of supervision.