1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

3. Text of the judgment of the court of first instance;

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Plaintiff B and C are the parents of Plaintiff A, and the Defendants are the parents of F (G).

B. On April 3, 2013, F, who was enrolled in the first grade of the I Elementary School located in Kimpo-si, was in excess of the smuggling of the Plaintiff A, etc., who was enrolled in the same school in Kimpo-si, and thereby, the Plaintiff incurred injury to the Plaintiff, who was in need of two weeks’ treatment.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1, Gap evidence 2-2, Eul evidence 5, Eul evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments.

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that, at the time, as a first-year student of the elementary school of 6 years old, the accident of this case occurred due to the negligence of F who had no legal capacity to recognize his responsibility for his act, and thereby, the Defendants, who are the person in parental authority of F with F with the legal obligation to supervise F, have the obligation to compensate the Plaintiffs for property damage and mental distress arising from the accident of this case under Article 755 of the Civil Act. Accordingly, the Defendants: (a) the Defendants: (b) the Defendants sealed the Plaintiff to defend the Dao to defend the Dao; (c) this constitutes self-defense to defend himself; (d) the Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff did not bear liability against the Plaintiffs; (c) so, it constitutes self-defense to defend the Dao; (d) it is insufficient to recognize that F was sealed to defend the Plaintiff A, and (e) the Defendants did not have any other evidence to recognize that the Dao, etc. was sealed to the extent that it would prevent the Plaintiff from defending the Plaintiff A.