1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Basic facts - The plaintiff A and B are the parents of the plaintiff C (the plaintiff in 2002) and the defendant D and E are the parents of the defendant F.

- On October 29, 2014, Plaintiff C faced face with Defendant F in front of the apartment elevator with a studio or a studio, around October 29, 2014.

- In the above accident, the plaintiff C suffered injuries, such as the dives diversity wave of pasia.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, evidence A1 through 5 (including paper numbers), purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Defendant F did not return the mobile phone from Plaintiff C without returning it, and caused Plaintiff C to be faced with the wall. Defendant D and E are parents of Defendant F, who are a minor, and the Defendants are jointly and severally liable for compensation for damages inflicted upon the Plaintiffs due to the tort. The Defendants spent KRW 1,695,400 for the medical expenses of Plaintiff C, and for the future treatment expenses of Plaintiff C such as plastic fee, KRW 11,944,135, and KRW 3 million for the consolation money for the emotional distress suffered by Plaintiff A and B, and KRW 6 million for the consolation money for the emotional distress suffered by Plaintiff C and C, and the Defendants are jointly and severally liable for compensation for damages inflicted upon Plaintiff A, KRW 4695,400, KRW 300,000 for the mental distress of Plaintiff C and KRW 3 million for the consolation money for the emotional distress of Plaintiff C and KRW 3 million for the compensation for delay. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable for compensation for damages to Plaintiff C.

B. Each statement of evidence Nos. 5 and 9 (including additional numbers) is insufficient to recognize that Plaintiff C suffered injury by facing face on the above temporary border wall due to Defendant F’s smuggling. There is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently. Thus, there is no way to find that Defendant F exercises any form of force, such as Defendant F’s exercise of force against Plaintiff B’s wall, even in light of the video of evidence No. 1.

The plaintiffs' above assertion cannot be accepted without any need to further examine the remainder of the issue.

3. If so, each of the plaintiffs' claims in this case is dismissed as it is without merit.