A. The facts of recognition 1) Plaintiff C and Defendant F are students attending the second grade 5 of G middle school. Plaintiff A and Plaintiff B are the parents of Plaintiff C, and Defendant D and Defendant E are the parents of Defendant F. Defendant F. Defendant F. (2) around 14:30 on April 8, 2015, Defendant C had five times the Plaintiff’s entrance around the G middle school class. Accordingly, Plaintiff C and Defendant C were completely deprived of one of the following, and the next three of the two, and suffered an injury that was pushed back and was pushed back up to the fright.

3) After receiving the above injury, Plaintiff C received dental treatment not only from Aju University Hospital, etc. but also from a psychiatrist. [Grounds for recognition] There is no dispute, and Plaintiff C’s evidence Nos. 2 through 5 (which include the number of pages), and the same is included.

each entry, the purport of the whole pleading

B. Determination 1) Even in cases where a minor is held liable for tort on his/her own due to his/her ability to act, if there is a proximate causal relation with the minor’s breach of duty by the supervisor, the supervisor shall be liable for damages as a general tortfeasor (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Da5061, Mar. 28, 2003). 2) In this case, it is obvious that he/she suffered physical and mental damage due to Defendant F’s assault, and that Plaintiff A and Plaintiff B, the parent of Plaintiff C, suffered mental damage.

In addition, considering the fact that Defendant D and Defendant E were living together with Defendant F, a second-year student in middle school, it is reasonable to view that the above Defendants neglected their duty to educate and supervise Defendant D’s parents so that they do not commit the above assault and thereby caused the above damages to the Plaintiffs.

3. Therefore, the Defendants jointly have a duty to protect the Plaintiffs from physical or mental harm caused by the instant crime in money.

2. Scope of liability for damages.