손해배상(기)
1. The plaintiffs' appeals and the claims added in the trial are all dismissed.
2. The costs of the lawsuit after the appeal are filed.
1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows: the part concerning "Defendant G as an assistant principal of the first instance judgment" in the part concerning "Defendant G as an assistant principal of the first instance judgment; the part concerning " June 9, 2010" in the part concerning "Defendant G as an assistant principal of the first instance court; the part concerning " June 11, 2010" in the 9th instance judgment as " June 11, 2010; additional evidence submitted in the trial and lack of recognition of the Defendants' tort or breach of their management and supervision obligations; and the part concerning "A" in the 18 through 27 evidence (including paper number) and the result of the first instance trial; all of the plaintiff's question of the first instance court are dismissed; and since the reasons for the first instance judgment other than adding the following judgments as to the matters alleged by the plaintiffs in the trial, they are cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420
2. The Plaintiffs asserted that Defendant H had led the meeting as the parent representative at the fifth and sixth grade parents conference of the I Elementary School on June 11, 2010 and deprived and infringed of the Plaintiffs’ right to free decision-making.
In this regard, it is difficult to acknowledge the fact that Defendant H delivered the opinion of the parents demanding the transfer of Plaintiff H on behalf of the parents at the above parents' meeting, but the fact that Defendant H forced the Plaintiffs to transfer beyond this, and infringed the Plaintiffs' right to make decisions is not sufficient to acknowledge it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, considering the overall purport of the arguments in the statement No. 17, it can be acknowledged that at the time, Plaintiff C expressed that the communication of Defendant H's opinion at the parents' meeting referred to the purport that "I will transfer to Plaintiff A" over several times. In light of this, it is reasonable to deem that Plaintiff A transferred the opinion by free will of the Plaintiffs.
Therefore, the decision-making right is infringed.