A. The Plaintiff and G are students who were enrolled in the third and second grade of H elementary schools around December 7, 2017.

Defendant E was a teacher in the second grade of the above third grade, and Defendant F was the principal of the above school.

Defendant D is the mother of G.

B. On December 7, 2017, at around 8:50, the Plaintiff, a teacher at school, was under the direction of Defendant E, a teacher at school, for the same anti-school students and students, and was subject to an accident where G was under the direction of his own wind (hereinafter “instant accident”). In addition, the Plaintiff was under the direction of Defendant E, a teacher at school, for the same school, and was under the accident where G was under the direction of his own wind.

Defendant E left the Plaintiff immediately after the instant accident occurred and moved to the school care room.

C. The Plaintiff suffered bodily injury, etc. of the outer reproduction that requires five weeks’ medical treatment due to the instant accident, and suffering from acute stress reaction that requires two weeks’ medical treatment.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3, 9-12 (including each number)

2. Whether liability for damages arises;

A. According to the facts of recognition under Article 755(1) of the Civil Act, G’s act of pushing the Plaintiff constitutes a tort against the Plaintiff. Since it is reasonable to deem that G was a student who was in the third grade of elementary school at the time of the instant accident and was not in the capacity to compensate the Plaintiff for damages caused by the instant accident pursuant to Article 755(1) of the Civil Act, Defendant D, who is legally obligated to supervise G, is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages caused by the instant accident. 2) As the instant accident occurred in school, Defendant D’s duty to protect and supervise G is borne by teachers, such as the principal, etc., and thus, he does not bear liability for damages.

The responsibility for the protection and supervision of Defendant D’s G on the whole of the daily life of G, and the fact that there is an agent such as teacher, etc., it cannot be said that Defendant D’s legal supervision responsibility is evaded.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da24318 Decided April 26, 2007, etc.). Defendant D is in G.