1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the Plaintiff’s order to pay the following amount is against the Seoul Special Metropolitan City.

Basic Facts

On March 16, 2012, the Plaintiff was working in the deaf-gu of the F Elementary School on the 12:53th day of March 16, 2012, and went to the direction of the entrance stairs of the first floor of the building in the above elementary school in order to enter a sounder class to inform that classes will begin after the lapse of the time of occupation.

The Plaintiff suffered from a string of the off-line executives who need to be treated for six weeks, going beyond the right side before the stairs.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). At the time of the instant accident, the Plaintiff was in the sixth grade 14 of F Elementary School, and Defendant C was in the sixth grade 10 students of the same school.

The above schools are public elementary schools established and operated by the defendant Seoul Metropolitan Government.

[Ground of recognition] The plaintiff asserted that there was no dispute, Gap 3 and 7's statements, images, and the purport of the entire pleadings against defendant C, and that since the accident of this case occurred due to defendant C's smuggling, defendant C has a duty to compensate for the damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the accident of this case.

Judgment

In light of the following reasons, the evidence alone presented by the Plaintiff is not sufficient to recognize the fact that Defendant C was pushed ahead of the Plaintiff at the time of the accident, and there is no other evidence relating thereto.

Even based on CCTV images (A7), the identity of the plaintiff or the plaintiff is not specified at the time of the instant accident.

The Plaintiff asserted that the “students, who have been suffering from the scromatic scisfing in white color,” expressed in CCTV images, was Defendant C and at the time of the instant case, but the images alone are not clear as to whether the said student was the perpetrator, and it is difficult to further determine whether the said student was the same as Defendant C.

The student J's statement set forth in Gap 1 and 5 is difficult to see that it has stated the situation accurately at the time of the accident in light of the atmosphere and content at the time of conversation, and the content thereof is also a student who has received a white clothes.