Of the costs of appeal, the part arising from the non-permanent appeal for the plaintiff shall be borne by the same plaintiff, while the part arising from the defendant's appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

However, considering the contents of Gap evidence No. 1-1 (No. 1) adopted by the original judgment by comparing the whole purport of the pleading with the testimony of Lee Jong-sik, a witness at the court of first instance, and the whole purport of the pleading at the court of first instance, it is not necessary to say that there is a danger of accidents such as lending new Cheong-chul at the time of the accident, but it is not necessary to say that the defendant's use of the plaintiff Jeong-gu, who was not only remaining 11 years old and old, has a new garrising with the loan of the non-party Shin Jong-sung and air gun, and the defendant's use of the air gun, which was cited by the above new garrising with the above new garrising with the above new garrising, the whole garrising part of the above new garrising witness at the court of first instance, and thus, it is not sufficient to accept the fact that the original judgment erred by manipulating the facts, and thus, it is not reasonable to admit the plaintiff's damages for the plaintiff's use as evidence.

The first ground for appeal by the defendant's attorney is examined.

Examining the evidence cited by the original judgment in light of the record, this is due to the negligence of the emission of a shot, where the shot of the non-party shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot

Since it is sufficient to recognize the original fact that a building accident occurred, there is no argument that there is an error of misunderstanding facts without evidence in the original judgment.

The second ground of appeal is examined.

However, in the case of this case where the defendant sustained a person by putting a new air gun with the same air gun as the facts established in the original judgment, and caused the injury of the person due to the misunderstanding, the court below, based on evidence, recognized the fact that the defendant as the father of the non-party, as the father of the non-party, should not be able to take a look at the risk of the accident, such as putting him as an shot air gun, and should be carefully supervised and instructed. However, even though he did not fulfill his duty of care, the non-party, who is his son, was not able to take such responsibility, and recognized the fact that he borrowed the air gun as seen above, and recognized the fact that the non-party, as the above, caused the negligence and caused the accident, and recognized the defendant, who is the person responsible for legal care, as the defendant, as the legal guardian, and therefore there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as pointed out.

The grounds of appeal No. 3 are examined.

The court of first instance, consistent with the defendant's defense that the original judgment's claim for damages from loss of profit for the plaintiff Jung-gu's use was improper, and rejected the part of the testimony of the witness Kim Chang-chul of the original court, which is against the rules of evidence, did not appear to be a favorable measure in violation of the rules of evidence, and therefore, it is not reasonable to charge the judgment of the court below on the admission of evidence

Therefore, all appeals by the plaintiff Jung-gu and the defendant are dismissed. Of the costs of appeal, the part of the appeal by the same plaintiff shall be borne by the same plaintiff, and the part of the appeal by the defendant shall be borne by the defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Kim Young-chul Kim Young-ho (Presiding Judge)