1. The Defendants jointly with H and K KRW 7,400,000 for the Plaintiff A, and KRW 1,00,000 for the Plaintiff B, and KRW 7,00,000 for the Plaintiff C, respectively.

1.The facts subsequent to the facts of recognition may be found either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the entries in Gap evidence 1 to 14, Eul evidence 1(b) (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the whole purport of the pleadings:

Defendant F and I used the status as the second-year student of L High School leading students in the middle-year group of L High School leading the Plaintiff A and C, a second-year student of the same school, have been harasting the Plaintiff A and C, who were the next-year student of the same school, and the Plaintiff F and C were frighting against L High School Defendant F and I.

B. Defendant F and I committed an act as shown in attached Forms 1 and 2 against Plaintiff A and C.

C. Defendant F and I received juvenile protective disposition in the Daegu Family Court case 2016 Pu2053, 2054, where the aforementioned act was recognized.

Plaintiff

B is the mother of Plaintiff A, and Plaintiff D and E are the parents of Plaintiff C.

Defendant G is the father of Defendant F, and Defendant J is the father of Defendant I.

H is Defendant F’s mother, and K is Defendant I’s mother.

E. Defendant G and J paid the Plaintiff KRW 1,000,000 for each of them as damages.

2. Liability for damages;

A. According to the facts of recognition as above, Defendant F and I’s above acts constitute tort (hereinafter “instant tort”), and Defendant G and J, as their father, have neglected their duty of care to protect, educate, and supervise Defendant F and I, a minor child, in order to prevent such tort. Thus, the Defendants are jointly liable to compensate for the damages suffered by the Plaintiffs.

Plaintiff

C, D, and E, Defendant I appears to be the clerical error of Plaintiff I C in the correction of L High Schools around April 21, 2016.

However, there is no evidence to prove that it was threatened by the transfer of the word "the death".

The Defendants filed an appeal with the Office of Education of the Gyeong-do, where Defendant F and I were subject to the compulsory transfer of the instant tort, and that appeal was made in the process.