1. Defendant E and Defendant F jointly share 10,730,774 won, Plaintiff B and C, respectively, and each of the said money.

1. Basic facts

A. Plaintiff A (G students) and Defendant D (H students) were students attending the second grade I elementary school as of June 13, 2016.

Plaintiff

B and C are the parents of Plaintiff A, Defendant E, and F. The parents of Defendant D.

B. On June 13, 2016, at the first half of the second grade class of the above elementary school on 09:50 on June 13, 2016, Defendant D exceeded the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant act”) and a part of the inner part of the garbage tank was faced by the Plaintiff.

C. Due to the instant act of Defendant D, there was an injury in which the Plaintiff’s upper right-hand side and the left-hand side of the bad faith of Plaintiff A were completely avoided.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy Facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 17 (including the number of branches), Gap's physical appraisal result against Gap, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. According to the above basic facts, it is sufficiently recognized that the injury of the plaintiff A was caused by the act of this case by the defendant D.

Although there is no evidence to prove that Defendant D had an intent to mislead Defendant A, it cannot be deemed that Defendant D had an intent to make a physical contact that Defendant D did not want, and that Defendant D had an intent to inflict bodily injury upon the Plaintiff during the process of making the Plaintiff’s physical contact unreasonable.

B. However, in order to recognize the liability for damages to Defendant D, the liability must be recognized to Defendant D.

(Article 753 of the Civil Act). Whether a minor has the ability to assume responsibility is determined by whether, at the time of the act with respect to a specific act, he/she has an intelligence to change his/her responsibility at the time of the act, and whether he/she actually changed his/her responsibility is not charged.

Defendant D is merely a second-year student of an elementary school of 8 years old at the time of the instant case, and it is difficult to view that Defendant D has the responsibility.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims against the defendant D.