1. The Defendants jointly share KRW 10,068,80 with respect to the Plaintiff and the period from March 29, 2013 to August 28, 2015.

1. The following facts may be acknowledged, either in dispute between the parties or in full view of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 5 (including the number of each unit), each of the results of the physical examination commissioned by the High School Uniform Hospital in this Court, and the purport of the entire arguments as a result of the fact inquiry.

Plaintiff

Defendant G, J, L, and N were in the first, the third, and Defendant D were in the third, Q high schools. Defendant E and F were parents of Defendant G, Defendant H, and Defendant H and I, Defendant K’s father of Defendant J, Defendant M’s mother of Defendant M, Defendant M’s mother of Defendant L, and Defendant N’s mother of Defendant M.

(hereinafter referred to as “Defendant students” when referring to Defendant D, G, J, L, or N, and when referring to Defendant E, F, H, I, K, M, orO, hereinafter referred to as “Defendant parents”). (B)

Around March 29, 2013, on the ground that the Plaintiff was not the Plaintiff, the Defendant students left the Plaintiff in the name of the Singu of Busan on March 19, 2013, on the ground that it was not the Plaintiff, and Defendant D, first of all, met the Plaintiff’s both bucks and legs, and the rest of the Defendants also met at the time of the Plaintiff’s scam, etc.

(hereinafter referred to as the above assault by the Defendants is the instant assault. C.

The Plaintiff, due to the instant assault, sustained injuries, such as external wounds, face chromatic, brain-dead, and scarbing, etc., was refused to attend school after the instant assault, and was also showing a mental disorder, such as decentralization disorder, fladism, and humbing, etc.

2. Determination

A. 1) According to the fact that the Defendant student’s liability is recognized, the Defendant student is liable to compensate for the Plaintiff’s damages caused by the instant assault as an illegal act. 2) Even in cases where the Defendant parent’s liability is attributable to the minor’s ability to compensate for tort, if there is a proximate causal relation with the minor’s breach of duty by the supervisory agent, the supervising agent shall be a general tortfeasor.