1. The Defendants shall jointly:

A. Plaintiff A: 40,809,161;

B. Plaintiff B: (a) KRW 2,000,000 and each of them, respectively.

1. Basic facts

A. Plaintiff A and Defendant C were students who were enrolled in the first and fifth grade of F Middle School which was presented at the time of 2015.

B. On May 28, 2015, Defendant C received franc in the English class hours in the English language, and francing the other students, and francing the Plaintiff’s shoulder with Plaintiff A with his horse-friendly dispute with Plaintiff A, and francing the Plaintiff, Defendant C sent the Plaintiff’s face to Plaintiff A with a knife with a knife knife knife with his hand, and led the Plaintiff to an open knife (hereinafter “instant injury”).

C. The plaintiff B is the father of the plaintiff A, the defendant D, and the defendant E are the parents of the defendant C.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts that there is no dispute between the parties, each entry (including paper numbers), Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Gap evidence Nos. 5 and 6, the video (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. According to the facts acknowledged prior to Defendant C, Defendant C is liable for the damages incurred by the instant injury in light of its age, degree of study, etc., even if there was an intelligence to distinguish the responsibility for the instant injury from that of the Plaintiff, and thus, Defendant C is liable for compensating for the damages incurred by the instant injury.

B. Even in cases where Defendant D and E1 is liable for tort by a minor due to his/her ability to act, if there is proximate causal relation with the minor’s breach of duty by the supervisor, the supervisor shall be liable for damages as a general tort. In such cases, the existence of proximate causal relation with the violation of the supervisory duty and the occurrence of damages should be proved by the claimant (Supreme Court Decision 93Da13605 delivered on February 8, 1994). According to the above facts, Defendant D and E, who is the person with parental authority of Defendant C, are the minor’s children, are ordinarily able to enable Defendant C, who is a minor, to exercise violence against others within the school and adapt themselves to school life in normal terms.