1. All appeals filed against the plaintiffs A and B and appeals filed against the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The appeal costs.

1. The reasons for the acceptance by the court of first instance are as follows: (a) the reasons for the acceptance by the court of first instance are as follows, and such reasoning is identical to the reasons for the judgment of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article

2. Section 2 of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance with regard to "the occurrence of liability for damages and limitation on liability" shall be as follows.

2. Occurrence of liability for damages and limitation on liability;

A. Although Defendant School Teachers J is obligated to safely protect and supervise Plaintiff A, who is a student in need of protection, the above Plaintiff neglected the accident of this case and failed to take proper emergency measures after the accident, thereby deteriorating the status of the above Plaintiff. Therefore, the Defendant is the employer of the above teachers, who is the employer of the above teachers, and is liable for the employer under Article 756 of the Civil Act.

B. Whether the Defendant’s employer liability is established or not, the principal or teacher of a school established and operated by a local government has the duty to protect and supervise students. However, such duty to protect and supervise students under the Education Act does not affect all the students’ living relationship within the school, but is limited to educational activities and other closely indivisible living relationship. Even in the case of living relationship within the scope of such duty, the above legal doctrine likewise applies to private schools operated by a school foundation, insofar as the accident is anticipated or likely to occur ordinarily in school life, taking into account the time and place of educational activities, the offender’s ability to separate the offender, the perpetrator’s character and conduct, the offender’s relationship, and other various circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da44205, Apr. 11, 200).