1. The Defendants: (a) KRW 6,639,259 for each Plaintiff; and (b) KRW 5% per annum from January 13, 2017 to October 16, 2018; and (c).

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff and Defendant D are students who were enrolled in the third grade of G middle school in 2015, and Defendant E is the father of Defendant D.

B. At around 12:20 on October 6, 2015, Defendant D inflicted an injury on the part of the Plaintiff’s arms at the first half of the third grade class class of the said school, 3:4 times in his/her hand, snife the snife, snife the snife, snife the snife of the snife (hereinafter “the instant assault”).

C. On October 19, 2015, the Plaintiff hospitalized in H Hospital and discharged the Plaintiff on October 27, 2015, after receiving the diagnosis of “an area of the closed brine, eye (urine), eye (urine), and salvine and tissue salvine.”

On October 27, 2015, the Autonomous Committee for Countermeasures against School Violence was held with respect to the instant assault, and Defendant D was subject to written apology, community service, suspension of attendance, etc.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3, 4, Eul evidence 3 and 6 (including numbers, hereinafter the same), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Establishment of liability;

A. 1) According to the above facts of recognition, Defendant D has a duty to compensate for damages suffered by the Plaintiff since it committed an illegal act committed by assaulting the Plaintiff and injuring the Plaintiff. 2) Even in a case where a minor committed an illegal act on his own due to the ability to compensate, if there is a proximate causal relation with the minor’s breach of duty by the supervisor, the supervisor shall be liable for damages as an ordinary tortfeasor.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Da60588, Aug. 23, 1994). Defendant D, as at the time of the instant assault, was the third-year student of a middle school of 15 years old at the time of the instant assault, was fully supported by Defendant E, his father, and was given full support in economic aspect. As such, Defendant E, as a person with parental authority, has a duty to educate, protect, and supervise Defendant D, who has still failed to meet the legal requirements, to prevent the occurrence of other students.

Nevertheless, Defendant E shall do so.