1. The Defendants jointly share KRW 161,370,090 to Plaintiff A, and KRW 158,370,090 to Plaintiff B, and each of the said money.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Fact 1) The Plaintiffs to the status of the parties are the network F (G students, hereinafter “the network”).

Defendant D is the parent of a child care center. Defendant D is the president of the “H child care center” accompanying the Deceased, and Defendant E is the child care teacher of the said child care center. Defendant C is the IF bus, the above child care center school bus (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

(1) The Korean Federation of Bus Transport Businesses (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant Federation”) is a driver and is also a member of the Korean Federation of Bus Transport Businesses.

(2) On March 10, 2015, the Defendant C, who entered into a mutual aid agreement with the Defendant vehicle, was driving the Defendant vehicle at around 10:08 on March 10, 2015, to have arrived at the front of the child care center located in the J of Gwangju City, and left the place after getting out of it.

At the time, the distance between the lower branch and the lower branch of the child care center was about 14 meters, and the Defendant’s vehicle was 16 children and Defendant E, including young children in the age of 16 who cannot get married.

① Accordingly, Defendant D has a duty of care to thoroughly control and supervise boarding teachers and childcare center workers by assigning teachers separately at the lower point and allowing them to take over infants getting on board the Defendant’s vehicle. ② Defendant E has a duty of care to lead infants to get on board a vehicle and hand over them directly to an internal teacher to help them safely, and ③ Defendant C had a duty to prevent accidents by checking whether infants have been safely delivered out of the surrounding area of the vehicle, and continuing to prevent accidents.

Nevertheless, Defendant C, D, and E neglected this duty of care, and Defendant C, without discovering the deceased’s front part of the Defendant’s vehicle, started driving the Defendant vehicle as it is without finding out that it would have left the front part of the Defendant vehicle, and the deceased was employed on the front part of the Defendant vehicle and worked on the next floor, and caused brain damage, etc. on the part of the deceased.