1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff ordering payment is revoked.

2. The Defendants jointly do so.

1. Basic facts

A. In 2014, the Plaintiff, along with Defendant D, was enrolled in the first grade 1 of H middle school in Daegu-gu G.

Defendant E and F are parents of Defendant D.

B. On May 13, 2014, Defendant D’s 15th degree of 15th class, on the following occasions: (a) the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff were in conflict with the first grade class class of the said H secondary school at the time of the said first grade class of the said H middle school, and (b) when the Plaintiff was able to see and knee the Plaintiff, and (c) the Plaintiff was able to see the Plaintiff’s 4th class and knee the Plaintiff, and (d) Defendant D was 3 as drinking.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant fighting”). C.

H Middle Schools held the Autonomous Committee on Countermeasures against School Violence on May 20, 2014 to deliberate on the instant fighting, and decided to take measures against Defendant D, such as “five days of completion of special education by experts outside and outside the school, and class replacement.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 2, 3, 7 evidence (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Defendant D, on May 13, 2014, abused the Plaintiff through the instant fighting match, and committed a tort causing injury to the Plaintiff, such as an injury on the left-hand 1stm frame, which requires at least four weeks of treatment.

Therefore, as the parents of Defendant D and Defendant D, who are illegal acts under Article 750 of the Civil Act, are jointly and severally obligated to supervise Defendant D and Defendant D, as the parents of Defendant E and F, to pay the Plaintiff damages for the tort amounting to KRW 6,464,00 (=the treatment cost + KRW 464,000 + the treatment cost + KRW 6,00,000) and damages for delay from May 13, 2014.

3. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. In a case where damage was incurred due to a minor’s illegal act, if there is a proximate causal relation with the minor’s breach of duty by the supervisor, the supervisor shall be liable to compensate as a general tortfeasor.

(See Supreme Court Decision 91Da37690 delivered on May 22, 1992, etc.). B.

According to the above facts, Defendant D assaulted the Plaintiff, and Defendant E and F are parents.