1. The Defendants jointly share the Plaintiff KRW 7,029,821, Plaintiff B, and C, respectively, and each of the said money.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The facts of recognition 1) Plaintiff A was the victim of the instant assault from Defendant D, F, and H, and Plaintiff B and C were the parents of Plaintiff A, Defendant E was the father of Defendant D, Defendant G was the father of Defendant F, and Defendant I was the father of Defendant H at the time of the instant assault. 2) At the time of the instant assault, Plaintiff A was the middle student (middle 3), Defendant D, and Defendant F was the middle student (middle 3).

From May 17, 2016 to 23:50, Defendant D, H, and F assaulted Plaintiff A’s face, etc. due to his hand and satis, on the ground that Plaintiff A’s act was committed in the direction of peace (hereinafter, the crime of this case) behind the J apartment shop in Yangcheon-gu Seoul, Yangcheon-gu, Seoul (J apartment), from May 17, 2016 to 23:50, and thereby, Plaintiff A suffered injury that requires three weeks’ treatment.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Evidence Nos. 12, 15, 16, Evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the video of Evidence No. 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above findings of recognition 1, the plaintiff Eul suffered physical and mental damage due to the crime of this case committed by the defendant D, H, and F, and the plaintiff Eul, the parent of the plaintiff Eul, suffered mental damage. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the defendant D, H, and F are liable to compensate the plaintiffs for damages caused by the crime of this case as joint tortfeasor. Further, even if a minor is held liable for tort due to his/her ability to compensate, if there is a proximate causal relation with the minor's breach of duty by the supervisor, the supervisor shall be held liable for damages (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Da5061, Mar. 28, 2003). Considering that the defendant Eul and the defendant Eul were living together with the defendant Eul, the defendant Eul, and the defendant Eul were bringing up with the defendant Eul, the defendant Eul and the defendant Eul, and the defendant H, the defendant Eul should have prevented the defendant Eul from doing so as to avoid the above education of the defendant Eul.