1. The Defendants jointly committed against Plaintiff A and B, each of which was KRW 330,454,475, and KRW 25,000,000, and each of the said money.

1. Basic facts

A. The status of the parties 1) Plaintiff A is the net F (G students, hereinafter “the network”).

(2) Defendant D is the father of H(I) and Defendant E is the mother of H.

3) H와 망인은 망인 사망 당시 각 초등학교 5학년으로, 교회에서 알게 된 친구 사이였다. 나. 이 사건 사고의 발생 H는 자살하려다 혼자 죽기에 억울하다고 생각하며 자살의 명분 등을 찾던 중, 망인을 살해하고 본인도 죽기를 결심하였다. H는 2019. 12. 26. 비어있던 조부모의 집으로 망인을 유인하여 망인에게 “깜짝 선물을 줄 것이 있다.”고 하면서 망인의 눈을 보자기로 가린 후, 망인을 칼과 망치로 몇 차례 찌르고 내리쳐 살해하였고 시체를 복도에 유기하였다. [인정근거 다툼 없는 사실, 갑 제1 내지 5호증의 각 기재, 변론 전체의 취지

2. According to the above facts, the deceased’s death (hereinafter “the instant accident”) occurred due to H’s tort. H is a person under the responsibility of having no capacity to change liability for the above tort due to the fifth-year elementary student of the age of 11 at the time of the instant accident. The Defendants, as parents of H, have a legal duty to supervise H, who is a minor incapable of being responsible.

Therefore, unless there is any evidence that the Defendants did not neglect their duty of care as a guardian at the time of the instant accident, they are jointly liable to compensate the Plaintiffs for the damages incurred by the deceased and the Plaintiffs due to the said tort pursuant to Article 755(1) of the Civil Act.

In this regard, Defendant D did not violate the duty to protect and supervise H since it could not have predicted the instant accident, but there is no evidence to acknowledge the said assertion by Defendant D.

Therefore, Defendant D’s assertion cannot be accepted.

3. Scope of liability for damages.