1. The Defendant’s KRW 4,125,00 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from November 6, 2014 to November 5, 2015.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The facts of recognition 1) At around 16:30 on June 18, 2014, D(E) is a middle school student, and around 16:30 on June 18, 2014, D(E) assessed the face of the Plaintiff (H student) who was accommodated in and returned to the front of his or her friendship while taking advantage of the air gate during cleaning hours in the G middle school classrooms located in F in Chungcheongnam-si, Chungcheongnam-si, with a view to cleaning in the vicinity (hereinafter “instant accident”).

2) According to the instant accident, the Plaintiff suffered injury (hereinafter “the instant injury”) such as the instant accident, which was caused by the fall short of the upper right and the lower right, the lower right and the lower right and the lower right and the lower right and the lower right and the lower right and the lower right and the lower right and the lower right and the lower right and the lower right and the lower right and the lower right and the lower right and the lower right and the lower right and the lower right and the lower right and the lower

3) The Defendant is an insurer that has entered into an insurance policy that only the child who is the insured as D with D with D denying I. [Grounds for recognition] The Defendant is an insurer that has entered into an insurance policy that only the child who is the insured as D. The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including numbers, if any,

(1) Each entry, the result of the commission of physical appraisal to the chief of the Chungcheong Hospital in this Court, the purport of the entire pleadings.

B. According to the above fact of recognition of liability, the defendant is liable for damages sustained by the plaintiff due to the accident of this case as the insurer of D.

C. The Defendant asserts to the effect that the Defendant should limit the Defendant’s liability on the ground that the Plaintiff’s negligence, even though D had been able to become aware of the risk of the Plaintiff’s laying of a grave with a grave hole, there was negligence that caused the Plaintiff’s death, and that the negligence was 20 to 30%, and that the Defendant’s liability should be limited.

However, it could be predicted that the plaintiff can be at a price in the backel of D in the course of cleaning only with the descriptions of Nos. 2 and 3.

It is not enough to recognize that it was possible to avoid or avoid it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

2. Scope of damages.

(a) The National University of Construction of this Court for the future treatment costs.