Since the legal representative is a minor, a father of parental authority, b

(a)

3. B

4. C

Since it is a minor, the legal representative C or Mad

5. c

6. D;

7. E.

Since it is a minor, the legal representative e/Mof

8. e.

9.F;

10. G.

Since it is a minor, the legal representative g or mother h

11. g;

12. H

13. I

Since it is a minor, the father of parental authority i, mother j

14. i

15.j

16. K;

Since it is a minor, the legal representative k, mother 1

17.1

18.k

[Defendant-Appellant] Plaintiff X

Y Attorney Park Jong-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

2. The plaintiffs' remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, 60% is borne by the Plaintiffs, and 40% is borne by the Defendant, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

A. From May 1, 2002, the defendant is the president operating the Z childcare center located in Busan Shipping Daegu, and the plaintiff A, C, E, G, I, K (referred to as the "Plaintiff A, etc. when they are collectively named) is not in the above childcare center at the time of May 9, 2002, and the rest of the plaintiffs are the parents of the plaintiff A, etc.

B. While attending a child-care center, Plaintiff A, C, E, G, and I, who is a son general, had been provided with the crypology and the crypology. From May 10, 2007, Plaintiff K, a anti-general crypology and the crypology. From around May 10, 2007, there were symptoms such as high-speed, cryp, ptopy, and gypology. Plaintiff A, etc., who was receiving treatment from Nuribuwon, was hospitalized in the Matern Hospital on May 12, 2007, and Plaintiff E was hospitalized in the Matern Hospital on May 12, 2007, and as a result of the examination on this, the results of the examination on Plaintiff G, I, and the gypium were detected in the gypology for Plaintiff G, and the gypology for Plaintiff K.

D. From May 15, 2007, the shipping and Daegu Public Health Center, which is a public health clinic in charge of the above child-care center, conducted a vegetable test for the children and employees of the child-care center, and 33 of the 100 children (30 children and 3 teachers) were detected to cause food poisoning.

E. The food poisoning is mainly caused by the consumption of food contaminated by the food affected by the men’s body germs, as one of the three-dimensional food poisoning, and the diving is about 5-72 hours (average 12 hours) and indicates symptoms, such as high heat, clothes, snowfalls, and mouths.

【Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute; Gap evidence 1-6, 1-2-1 through 7; Gap evidence 3-1-20; Gap evidence 4; Gap evidence 10-1, 3, and 11-2; fact inquiry results with respect to the shipping agencies of this court; purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. According to the above facts, the defendant is responsible for compensating the plaintiffs for all damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the above illegal acts, even though he did not fulfill his duty of care to ensure that the children under the protection and supervision of the defendant live a healthy and safe life by keeping the child-care center environment in a sanitary manner, including food provided to the children who live in the child-care center as the head of the child-care center.

B. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

The defendant asserts to the effect that food poisoning caused to the plaintiff et al. including the plaintiff et al. was infected by the 7-year old-old 0, who showed symptoms of food poisoning from the time when the plaintiff et al. wanted to the child care center around May 9, 2007, and the defendant did not immediately take measures of isolation upon believing that the plaintiff et al. tried to diagnose theO on the day and did not immediately take measures of isolation.

However, there is no evidence to prove that the food poisoning generated to the plaintiff Gap et al. was infected by this (the cause of the food poisoning is not clearly revealed, but it is highly likely that the food poisoning occurred by the contaminated food in light of the collective occurrence to many young children). Even if the food poisoning generated to the plaintiff et al. was infected by this, as alleged by the defendant, it cannot be viewed that the defendant's ground for exempting the plaintiff from the responsibility to safely protect and supervise the children through the sanitary management of the environment of the child care center. Thus, the defendant's above assertion is rejected.

3. Scope of damages.

(a) Nursing expenses;

In consideration of the fact that the plaintiff et al. is an infant who needs to be able to assist his/her guardian, an nursing for four hours per day, and an nursing for one person, per day, for hospitalized treatment, shall be recognized respectively.

(1) Plaintiff A [2 days for hospital treatment (excluding one day overlapping with hospital treatment period) x 0.5 ＋ 13 days for hospital treatment) x 56,822 won (urban daily wage in the second half of 2006) = 795,508 won

(2) Plaintiff C. [2 days for outpatient0.5 + hospital treatment 11 days} ¡¿ 56,822 won = 681,864 won

(3) Plaintiff E [2 days of outpatient 0.5 + hospitalized treatment 17 days] ¡¿ 56,822 won = 1,022,796 won

(4) Plaintiff G. [4 days for hospital treatment 】 0.5 + 9 days for hospital treatment] 】 56,822 won = 625,042 won

(5) Plaintiff I [School Medical Treatment x 6 days x 0.5 + 6 days of hospitalization treatment x 56,822 - 511,398 won

(6) Plaintiff K [3 days of outpatient0.5 + 12 days of hospital treatment] X56,822 won = 767,097 won

【Ground for Recognition: The statement No. 3-1 to 20, No. 7-1 and No. 2-2, the fact-finding results on the g hospital head of this court, r medical corporation hospital head of the medical corporation, and the purport of the whole pleadings】

(b) consolation money;

(1) Reasons for taking into account: The developments and results of the instant case, the Plaintiffs’ age, family relationship, and the circumstances revealed in the instant argument, including the Defendant’s property status

(2) The amount determined;

① Plaintiff A, C, E, G, I, K: each KRW 1,00,000.

② The remaining plaintiffs: 500,000 won each.

C. Therefore, the Defendant: (i) KRW 1,795,508 for the Plaintiff C; (ii) KRW 1,681,864 for the Plaintiff C; (iii) KRW 681,864 for the care expenses + KRW 1,000,000 for the care expenses + KRW 2,02,796 for the Plaintiff E; (iv) KRW 1,022,796 for the care expenses + KRW 1,022,796 for the care expenses + KRW 1,625,00,000 for the 1,625,042 for the Plaintiff G; (iv) KRW 1,50,042 for the care expenses + KRW 1,00,000 for the care expenses + KRW 1,00,000 for 0,000 for the damages; and (v) KRW 1,511,398 for the Plaintiff; and (v) KRW 701,70,000 for the damages for the Plaintiff respectively.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims of this case are accepted within the scope of each of the above grounds, and each of the remaining claims is dismissed as it is without merit.