1. Defendant D, E, F, and G jointly share 2,766,032 won, Plaintiff B, and C, respectively, and each of the above amounts.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. At around 3:15 on May 11, 2013, Defendant D and G used assaulting Defendant D’s face, Defendant D and Defendant D’s face at the J parking lot located in Guri-si I, i.e., the Plaintiff’s act of working in Guri-si, with the Plaintiff’s face, and left the place after Defendant D’s act of assaulting the Plaintiff’s face.

B. On May 11, 2013, at around 3:25, 2013, Plaintiff A followed the said Defendants “M” in front of the said Defendants to “M”. Accordingly, Defendant D reported the Plaintiff’s face and side, etc. to the police, and Defendant G took the face of Plaintiff A by combining it with it.

(hereinafter “instant violence”). Due to the instant violence, Plaintiff A suffered bodily injury, such as a combination of the left-hand trokes and a rokes, a rokes, and a rokes, which require medical treatment for approximately 42 days.

C. Defendant E and F are the parents of Defendant D who were students of high schools of 17 years old and 3 years old at the time of birth, and Defendant H is the father of Defendant G who was students of 17 years old and 3 years old and 17 years old in the time of birth, and Plaintiff B and C are the parents of Plaintiff A.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 to 4, 7, and 8 (including branch numbers in the case of additional numbers) or the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. (1) According to the existence of liability for damages by Defendant D and G, it is reasonable to deem that Defendant D and G were 17 years of age at the time of the instant act of violence, and that they were capable of changing the responsibility for their act while they were minors. Thus, as joint tortfeasor who inflicted an injury on Plaintiff A, they are jointly liable for the damages suffered by the Plaintiffs due to the instant act of violence.

(2) Even in the case of damages caused by the tort by a minor who has the ability to compensate for damage by Defendant E and F, there is a proximate causal relation with the minor’s breach of duty by the supervisor.