1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person;

1. The Plaintiff asserted on October 24, 2015 that Defendant B and C left their children to the E Child Care Center operated by Bupyeong-gu Incheon, Incheon (hereinafter “Child Care Center”) as the president and vice president, and on October 24, 2015, the Plaintiff was the parent of the Plaintiff, who was in charge of children at the child care center operated by the Defendant B and C (hereinafter “instant Child Care Center”) and was refused twice or more from F ordinarily implemented at the Child Care Center in the instant case, but it was inevitable to divide it into two teams due to the wind of the Plaintiff’s request by each team members, etc., and opened a broom broom with a broom so that each team members, etc. start up a broom, thereby leaving the broom into a broom with a broom (hereinafter “instant games”).

The game of this case, such as a large broom, is hard to maintain a balance by sticking down with weight-centered, and it was hard to move the swine brooms into a brooms between legs. Since it was similar to a broom, it was difficult to remove the brooms from the brooms. Since the body fighting frequently occurs among participants, it is extremely difficult to capture the risk.

Nevertheless, the Defendants did not prepare emergency medicine while hosting such dangerous games at all, and did not provide the participants with safety protection equipment, such as health boars and protection belts, without any prior preventive movement for the prevention of injury, etc., and safety notification to the participants of the game of this case to take care of the danger and injury of the game of this case. Thus, even though the Plaintiff was injured while going beyond the game of this case, the Defendants left the game of this case while leaving the game of this case, and did not take simple emergency measures, neglected the Plaintiff while leaving the game of this case.

As such, the Defendants were negligent in neglecting the duty of prior and subsequent safety consideration to the participants while running the instant games extremely dangerous to the contrary, and thus, the Defendants were on the ground of the Plaintiff’s negligence.