1. Each of the Defendants indicated in the column for the damage obligor in the attached Table shall be jointly carried out by the relevant Defendants to Plaintiff A in the attached Table.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Defendant D, G, J, and L (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Defendant perpetrators”) were minors, and were subject to a protective disposition by putting the same minor Plaintiff A, as indicated in the [Attachment List Nos. 1 through 6].

B. Plaintiff B is the father of Plaintiff A, and Defendant E and F are the parents of Defendant D, Defendant H and I are the parents of Defendant G, Defendant K’s mother, Defendant M and N are the parents of Defendant J.

(hereinafter referred to as “Defendant’s parents” in combination with Defendant E, F, H, I, K, M, and N). [Grounds for recognition] A without dispute, each entry (including branch numbers) of evidence Nos. 1 through 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. According to the facts charged as above, the Defendant perpetrator is liable for compensating the Plaintiffs for mental damages caused by the tort, such as the tort he participated in each of the crimes listed in the separate crime list Nos. 1 through 6.

In addition, the following circumstances acknowledged by each of the above evidence, namely, the Defendant perpetrator, as a middle school student at the age of 13 to 14, depend exclusively on the Defendant parent in economic aspect and was under the protection and supervision of the Defendant parent at the time of each tort, etc., the Defendant perpetrator’s parents bear the duty of supervision and education, such as general and daily guidance and guidance so that the Defendant perpetrator may adapt to society normally without committing any tort, and thereby, caused mental damage to the Plaintiffs. Therefore, the Defendant perpetrator is liable for compensation for mental damage suffered by the Plaintiffs due to the Defendant’s involvement in each of the crimes listed in the attached Table Nos. 1 to 6.

(See Supreme Court Decision 91Da37690 delivered on May 22, 1992, etc.). 3. The scope of damages by the Defendants’ tort appears to have suffered a considerable mental suffering.