beta
Text
1. The Defendant (Appointed Party) and the designated parties jointly share the Plaintiff KRW 6,548,680, and KRW 1,000,000 for each of the Plaintiff B and C.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. Both Plaintiff A and Selection E are minors.
Plaintiff
B and C are the parents of the Plaintiff A, and the Defendant (Appointed Party) and the Appointor F are the parents of the Appointor E.
B. At around 17:00 on May 29, 2016, the Appointor E made several times the chests and side glasss with the hand floor on the ground that the Plaintiff, before the entrance of the H practice room G located in the Haak-gun G, made no tobacco.
C. On June 27, 2016, at around 18:30, the Selection-gu, the first instance court held that Plaintiff A was on several occasions on the alley-gun I’s alley for the reasons that Plaintiff A was selbowed back on the alley-gun I’s alley-gun, the first instance court held that Plaintiff A was on the part of drinking and belbow, and that he was on several occasions on the alley-ro from the alleys in the J of the front Y-gun, the second instance court held that Plaintiff E was on several occasions on the son-gu, the first instance court held that Plaintiff E’s son part of the Plaintiff’s belbow-gun, and that E continued to turn on the part of the Plaintiff’s bel.
(hereinafter “instant assault”) D.
Plaintiff
A suffered injury, such as “scarcity of scarke,” which requires five weeks’ medical treatment due to the assault of this case.
E. Appointed E and K were charged with joint injury (Seoul District Court 2016 High Court 2016 High Court 2016 High Court 5490) and they received a decision to transfer the case to the Juvenile Department, and received a decision to take a protective disposition on April 12, 2017.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 3, Gap evidence 4-1, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts finding that the act of the Selection E by assaulting the plaintiff Eul constitutes a tort under the Civil Act, the Selection E is liable to compensate the plaintiffs for the damages caused by the assault of this case.
In addition, even if a minor is held liable for tort due to his/her ability, if there is a proximate causal relation with the minor's breach of duty by the supervisor, the supervisor shall also be liable for damages as a general tortfeasor.