A. On March 2014, the Plaintiff is a student who was in the second and fourth grades of H middle schools under Defendant Busan Metropolitan City, and Defendant D is a student who was in the second and third grades of the same school.

In addition, Defendant E and F are the parents of Defendant D, and Defendant G was the teacher of Defendant D at that time.

B. At around 15:30 on March 14, 2014, Defendant D caused an accident at which the Plaintiff’s face was faced with another dynamic in the face of another dynamics (hereinafter “instant accident”). Around 15:30 on the 3rd-class corridor of the above school, he saw the dynamics from the hallway of the above school to string the dynamics at a rapid and rapid speed. In the fourth-class corridor, Defendant D caused an accident at which the Plaintiff’s face was faced with another dynamics.

C. The Plaintiff sustained 98,480 won for the king treatment expenses, which was incurred by blood transfusions and injection surgery due to the instant accident. On September 23, 2014, the Plaintiff was paid KRW 554,120 as medical expenses by the Busan Metropolitan City School Safety Mutual Aid Association and received KRW 44,360 (=98,480-554,120). The remainder of the Plaintiff was 44,360 won.

The plaintiff seems to have to undergo an additional malmmetric surgery on two occasions in the future, and the cost is 4,400,000 won.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1-3 evidence, Eul's 1-6 evidence and images, the result of physical appraisal entrusted by this court, the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. The judgment of Defendant D was examined, and even though Defendant D was the perpetrator of the instant accident, it is reasonable to view that Defendant D was a student before and after March 2014, 2014, who was at the time of the said accident, and was at the age of 14,000, who was at the time of the said accident, and was at the age of 14,000, at the time of the second grade and 1 semester of the middle school, and

Therefore, under Article 753 of the Civil Code, the plaintiff's claim against defendant D is without merit.

B. According to the above facts of recognition 1 as to Defendant E and F, Defendant E and F are legally responsible for supervision over Defendant D, who is not responsible as above, under Article 755 of the Civil Act.