1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Defendants exceeding the money ordered to be paid under the following subparagraphs shall be revoked.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff was affiliated with a beer service company that cares for infants and worked as a mother.

The defendants are married couple who employed the plaintiff for the work of care of D, a child.

B. On May 21, 2016, the Plaintiff: (a) had Defendant C and daily allowances of KRW 60,000, to work from May 24, 2016; (b) had only worked on May 21, 2016 on the same day; and (c) had to receive KRW 30,000, a half of the daily allowances from May 21, 2016.

C. On May 21, 2016, at around 17:40, the Plaintiff suffered bodily injury from the following parts of the Defendants’ house visit and the right floor, which requires medical treatment for about four weeks since the fall to the right floor.

(hereinafter referred to as the "accident of this case"). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence Nos. 2 through 5, 16 (including paper numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. In full view of the aforementioned evidence as well as the purport of the entire pleadings in the testimony of the witness E of the first instance trial, it is reasonable to deem that the instant accident occurred by pushing the Plaintiff’s side visit, which took clothes around 17:40 on May 21, 2016, in light of the following:

B. Under Article 755(1) of the Civil Act, which is a special provision for the Defendants’ liability pursuant to Article 750 of the Civil Act, the legal liability of a person who is obligated to supervise a minor with no capacity to assume responsibility is not attributable to the minor. In such a case, the said person cannot be exempted from liability unless it is proved that he/she did not have neglected the duty of supervision.

In full view of the evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings as seen earlier, D is a minor under the full protection and supervision of Defendant C, who is the mother of Defendant C at the time of the instant accident, as a minor under the age of 1 and 4 months, even though it was negligent in doing so, it should be deemed that the instant accident occurred due to Defendant C’s negligence.

Therefore, the defendants, who are parents of D, are the parents of D Article 755 of the Civil Code.