1. The Defendants jointly share KRW 4,783,420 with 5% per annum from November 4, 2015 to February 14, 2017.

1. The following facts of recognition may be found either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the entries in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the whole purport of the pleadings:

In April 15, 2015, the Plaintiff and Defendant D were the same half-year students in G High School.

At the time, Defendant D was 16 years of age, and was able to live together with Defendant E and F, a parent.

B. On April 15, 2015, Defendant D inflicted injury on the Plaintiff’s face, such as the complete escape of the upper left-hand body, the closure of the bones, etc.

(hereinafter “instant injury.” Defendant D received a disposition of suspension of indictment on September 7, 2015 at the Daegu District Public Prosecutor’s Office and its branch office on the facts of the instant suspicion.

2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the occurrence of liability for damages, Defendant D is liable to compensate for the damages suffered by the Plaintiff due to the instant injury.

If there is a proximate causal relation with the violation of duty by the supervisor, even if a minor is held liable for tort on his/her own due to his/her ability to take responsibility, the supervisor shall be liable for damages as a general tort.

(See Supreme Court Decision 93Da60588 delivered on August 23, 1994). As seen earlier, Defendant D was a first-year student of the 16-year-old high school at the time of the instant injury, with his parent and residence together, and was entirely dependent on, and subject to protection and supervision in economic respect.

Therefore, Defendant E and F, as the parent of Defendant D, have a duty to educate, protect and supervise the minors who were minors at the time so that they do not cause any other student or harassment.

Nevertheless, Defendant E and F neglected this duty and caused Defendant D to prevent the instant injury. Since there is a proximate causal link between Defendant E and F’s breach of such duty of care and the instant injury, Defendant E and F are liable to compensate for the Plaintiff’s damage jointly with Defendant D.