1. The Defendants each of the Plaintiffs A and B shall be KRW 1,00,000, KRW 200,000 for each of the Plaintiffs C and D, and KRW 2,918,380 for the Plaintiff E.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The defendant F et al. committed a tort in which the plaintiff F et al. suffered injury, such as the plaintiff E et al. by walking the plaintiff E from the plaintiff E et al. on April 15, 2010. The defendant G, H et al. violated the defendant F's protection, supervisor's duty of guidance and decoration against the defendant F et al., and the defendant F et al. caused the above tort, and the defendant F et al. were jointly and severally liable to compensate the plaintiff C et al., the plaintiff E and his parents, and the plaintiff C et al., the plaintiff F et al. were jointly and severally responsible for compensation for damages caused by the violation. 2) The defendant F and the plaintiff et al. were affected by the plaintiff F et al., and the plaintiff F et al. were affected by the plaintiff F et al. during the plaintiff F's movement, and the plaintiff F et al. were affected by the plaintiff E et al.

As above, the Plaintiff E is only an accident that occurred in the course of the movement, and Defendant F did not intentionally assault Plaintiff E, and the above accident is an accident that was caused by Defendant F and Plaintiff E’s failure to discover each other, and the negligence of Plaintiff E is more than 50%.

Defendant F did not have a problem in the performance, such as assaulting another person, and the fact that Plaintiff E’s act was caused by a friendly accident during the campaign. Thus, it cannot be said that the above accident was caused by Defendant G and H’s act of violation of the duty of care concerning guidance and advice on Defendant F. Therefore, the Plaintiffs’ claim against Defendant G and H is without merit.

B. In full view of whether Defendant F is liable for Defendant F’s damage, as a whole, the respective statements in the evidence Nos. 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, and 12, and the overall purport of the pleadings in the witness I’s testimony, Defendant F did not find out that there was a string for Plaintiff E from among the implements that had been carried out on April 15, 2010, when Plaintiff F was faced with, and he took a bath against the Plaintiff E.