1. As to the Plaintiff A’s KRW 1,431,50, and KRW 500,000 for each of the said money and each of the said money from March 22, 2016.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. 1) On March 22, 2016, Plaintiff A and Defendant (GG students) considered that Plaintiff A was a student who was enrolled in the second and second grade 9 of Hmiddle School in 2016. (2) On March 22, 2016, the Plaintiff deemed that Plaintiff A was “Iscisfisfisfisfisfisfisf, and why Iscisfisfisfisf,” on the ground that the Defendant was unable to play a game.

Accordingly, the Defendant was at the time when the Cuba was put on the deposit of the Plaintiff A, and thereafter the Defendant was at the time of leaving Cuba on several occasions to the other party, on the ground that when the fluenca was put on Cuba, the Plaintiff was at the time of taking the Plaintiff’s face four times on the ground that the fluenca had been put in Cuba to the Plaintiff A, the Defendant damaged the Plaintiff’s huba, which was used by the Plaintiff A, and caused the Plaintiff A to suffer an injury that requires a 10-day stability fee.

(hereinafter “instant harmful act”). Plaintiff B and C are the parents of Plaintiff A. [The grounds for recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap 1, Gap 3-1, Gap 4, Gap 5, Gap 7, Eul 2, Eul 3, part of Eul 1, Eul 1, Eul 1, Eul 3-1, Gap 3-4, Gap 5, Gap 7, Eul 2, Eul 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the above facts of recognition of liability, the defendant is liable for all damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the harmful act of this case.

2. Scope of damages.

A. The plaintiffs' claim 1) active damages of the plaintiff A: 131,500 won: The consolation money of the plaintiff A 15 million won, the plaintiff C and the plaintiff 5 million won, respectively.

(b) the Commission;

Plaintiff

A’s affirmative damage: 131,500 won (A. 10 evidence). (c)

1) The Plaintiffs asserted that the Defendant exercised speech violence as a result of the instant harmful act. However, the evidence No. 12, which seems to conform to the Plaintiffs’ assertion, is a document stating Plaintiff B and C’s assertion, and there is no objective evidence supporting the said assertion, and thus, it is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant continued to exercise speech violence even after the instant harmful act, and thus, it does not constitute the grounds for calculating consolation money. (ii) The instant harmful act does not constitute the grounds for taking into account.