A. As of November 9, 2012, Plaintiff C was a child at the age of 3 and 11, the first half of the F Child Care Center run by Defendant D (hereinafter “instant Child Care Center”). Defendant E is a child care teacher at the instant Child Care Center, and Plaintiff A and B are the parents of Plaintiff C.

B. At around 10:00 on November 9, 2012, Defendant E had approximately 10 original students, including Plaintiff C, in the class of the junior group of the Child Care Center in the instant case (hereinafter “instant cooking practice”), and had the Plaintiff take part in the glutinous rice glutinous glutinous rice blutinous glutinous glutinous glutinous glutinous glutinous glutinous glus on the floor of the classroom, and caused the

C. While Defendant E’s smelling gas burners, during the instant cooking practice, the Plaintiff C, who left the classroom in which water was frighter, left the boomer and left the classroom in the toilet, was frightered from Paris to the floor of the classroom, and the water that the Plaintiff C was frightered from the above gaser’s bridge part (hereinafter “instant accident”). D.

In the instant accident, Plaintiff C suffered 3 degrees of images, excluding images, shots, and shots, including 10 to 19% of the physical surface of the body surface, such as unfating and left arms, and 3 degrees of images, various parts, shots, and motions.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4-1 through 10, 5, 6-1, 2, 3, 8, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of and restrictions on liability for damages;

A. According to the above fact of recognition of the liability for damages, since the practice of this case is a practice that has a risk of fire or image for the young children, who have not developed the ability to judge, including Plaintiff C, and thus, Defendant E, the teacher in charge of infant care, is a teacher in charge of child care, by providing facilities that enable young children to see water at a place where they cannot have access or block access of young children when conducting child care of this case.