1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiffs, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiffs are parents of net D (E, remaining, hereinafter "the deceased"), and the defendant is the father of F.

B. At around 16:20 on December 25, 2012, the Deceased fell from the apartment house of the second floor owned by the Defendant located in F and G, and the Seoul Jung-gu, Jung-gu, the Defendant, and the second floor of the apartment house of the Defendant located in H, and sent back to Gyeong-hee medical personnel, on the other hand, the external blood transfusions in the two joints, the two joints of the two joints of the two joints of the two joints of the two joints of the two joints of the two joints of the two joints,

C. On January 23, 2013, while undergoing a surgery, the Deceased died on January 24, 2013 at around 17:57, when he/she was hospitalized, he/she went through repulmonary surgery at around 17:00, and was under the next engine cutting operation.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 4, Gap evidence 6-1, 2, Gap evidence 11-1, 2, Gap evidence 13-1, 2, Gap evidence 13-2, Gap evidence 19, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiffs' assertion that the defendant did not install a rail for the prevention of fall on the rooftop of a house, and as such, the defendant was negligent in neglecting the entrance door up on the rooftop with his/her guardian, or neglecting it without having his/her guardian go up on the rooftop. Thus, the defendant is responsible for general tort under Article 750 of the Civil Act.

Even if it is not so, the defendant's child F (the 12 years old at that time) spreaded the fire extinguishing agents using the fire extinguishing machine towards the deceased, and the deceased fell and died, the defendant is liable to compensate for damages under Article 755 of the Civil Act due to negligence that failed to perform the duty of protecting and supervising the F, who is a person without responsibility, so long as the deceased fell and died.

It is reasonable to view that the deceased’s negligence exceeds 20%.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiffs damages for each of 154,263,290 won [132,763,290 won [244,547,886 won for lost earnings (i.e., 7,360 won for treatment of the deceased 80,000 won for consolation money] x 80% x 1/2] 1,500,000 won for funeral expenses x 1/2] 1,500,000 won for funeral expenses, respectively, and damages for delay.

(b).