1. In accordance with the expansion of the claim by this court, the defendants jointly do so to the plaintiff B and the plaintiff B.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 2016, Plaintiff A (FF) was an original student who was enrolled in a “G kindergarten” located in the city of macro-si and was enrolled in a kindergarten.

B. Plaintiff B and C are the parents of Plaintiff A, Defendant D is the teacher in charge of the above kindergarten, and Defendant E is the head of the above kindergarten.

C. On November 11, 2016, at around 16:55, Defendant D controlled and waited for children in order to help children get on a car tower in front of a kindergarten, on the ground that he/she does not listen to the above Defendant’s horse while entering the road and going into a kindergarten, Defendant D put up his/her arms and took them into the above Defendant’s horse on the ground that he/she did not listen to the entrance of the road, and carried them into the kindergarten two times.

As a result, the plaintiff A suffered an inner part and a non-softed part that require medical treatment for about 14 days, such as the face part is faced with the floor and cryp, etc.

(hereinafter “instant tort”). D.

Plaintiff

A has ceased to be present at the above kindergarten after November 12, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, each entry of Gap 1 through 8 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of recognition as above, Defendant D is a direct tortfeasor who violated the duty to protect and supervise Plaintiff A, and Defendant E is an employer who employs Defendant D, and is jointly liable for damages caused by the tort against the Plaintiffs.

As to this, Defendant E was unable to predict at all illegal acts committed by Defendant D without any appraisal, and thus, Defendant E was not liable for damages. However, the submitted evidence alone is insufficient to recognize that Defendant E had paid considerable attention to the supervision of the affairs of Defendant D, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise, Defendant E’s above assertion is not acceptable.

3. Scope of liability for damages

A. As to the claim for medical expenses, the Plaintiffs sustained damages of KRW 974,400 for the medical expenses of Plaintiff A due to the instant tort.