1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiffs, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

1. The reasoning of this part of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning the occurrence of liability for damages is the same as that of Paragraph (1) of the same Article, and thus, this part of the judgment is cited in accordance with the main sentence

2. Scope of damages.

A. (1) The comparative negligence set-off system under the Civil Act is intended to take into account the same care as the obligee’s in relation to the occurrence of damages, in a case where the obligee fails to fulfill his/her duty required under the good faith principle, and thus, the obligee’s foregoing care is to take into account. Thus, even if a simple negligence is established, if the damage was incurred or expanded due to it, it shall be deemed that there was negligence on the part of the aggrieved party. Even if the obligor does not assert the fault of the injured party, the court shall ex officio deliberate

In determining the liability for damages caused by a tort and the scope thereof, as long as the grounds for taking into account the fault of the victim into account are to fairly share the damages caused by the tort between the perpetrator and the victim, the negligence of the victim as well as the negligence of the person who is in a relationship with the victim’s personal status or social life should be considered as the negligence of the victim.

(2) In light of the facts and macroscopic evidence admitted in the judgment of the court of first instance as of August 26, 2010 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da37479, Aug. 26, 2010). (2) In light of the facts and macroscopic evidence admitted in the judgment of the court of first instance, the following circumstances, i.e., (i) Plaintiff B (B) was a disabled student registered as of April 1, 2004 as of intellectual disability 1, 2004; (ii) the mental damage occurred as of July 10, 2012, where the perpetrator was not revealed; and (iii) the second and third assault of the Plaintiff B was overlapped with the harmful act of the Defendant students; and (iv) the second and third assault of the Plaintiff’s scopic evidence submitted by the Plaintiffs.