1. The Defendants jointly hold the Plaintiff KRW 7,144,90, and KRW 2,00,000 and each of the above amounts to the Plaintiff B and C.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Party-Related 1) H (Nam), and Plaintiff A (Inn, I) are K kindergartens located in the GJ in Young-siJ (hereinafter “instant kindergarten”).

(2) Plaintiff B and C are the parents of Plaintiff A, and Defendant D and E are the parents of H.

3) Defendant F is the head of the instant kindergarten, and Defendant G is the teacher in charge of the instant kindergarten bb (6 years old) to which the Plaintiff A belongs. (b) On April 5, 2018, the Plaintiff A, who was in the event of an accident, departed from his leader under the direction of Defendant G, who was moving to the third floor role of the instant kindergarten, and went to play in the instant kindergarten. At the same time, at the play room, H was a brue (5 years old), including H, but he was a brue (hereinafter referred to as the “instant accident”). However, at the same time, H was a brue, including H, and a brue, a brue, a brue, a brue, a right brue, etc. of the Plaintiff.

(C) Plaintiff A was suffering from a diversity in both fingers and pets, etc. on July 16, 2018 due to the instant accident. Plaintiff A only established the instant kindergarten on July 16, 2018. The ground for recognition was without any dispute, Party A’s evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including a divers number, and evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6, and 4-1, 2, and 5-2 of the evidence Nos. 5-2, the purport of the entire pleadings, as a whole.

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Defendant D and E (1) is incompetent to assume responsibility, and the above Defendants, their parents, are liable to compensate the Plaintiffs for damages pursuant to the main sentence of Article 755(1) of the Civil Act. The Defendants asserted that they were not negligent in performing their duty of supervision. However, there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge the above assertion solely on the basis of each of the statements in the evidence No. 1-1 through No. 12, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. In addition, even if the instant accident occurred in an irregular field and it was difficult to supervise all of the instant accident, such circumstance alone cannot be deemed as exempt from the duty of supervision. Accordingly, the above assertion is rejected. 2) The Plaintiffs are aware of the fact of the accident after the instant accident and avoid liability.