1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The plaintiffs are parents of the network E (FFs; hereinafter referred to as "the deceased"), and the defendant Child-Care Safety Mutual Aid Association is an organization established to prevent safety accidents in child-care facilities pursuant to Article 31-2 (1) of the Infant Care Act and to contribute to protecting child-care facilities and creating a stable child-care crisis by compensating the infants and employees, etc. of child-care facilities who suffered from safety accidents in child-care facilities promptly and appropriately. The defendant C is the head who operates the "H child-care center" located in Bupyeong-gu Incheon Metropolitan City (hereinafter referred to as the "child-care center in this case"), and the defendant D is the child-care teacher working in the child-care center in this case.

From March 2, 2014, the Plaintiffs entrusted the care of the deceased children to the child care center of this case operated by Defendant C.

B. On April 17, 2014, at around 10:30 on April 17, 2014, Defendant D returned four children who were attending the instant childcare center, including the deceased, and on the same day, at around 11:20 through 11:40 on the same day, Defendant C knew of the fact that the deceased’s body was in a white and increased, and Defendant C was aware of the fact that the deceased’s body was abnormal by calls to the Plaintiff B on the same day.

C. Plaintiff B, who was to go back to the I Hospital working for Plaintiff B, was the deceased on the same day, and Defendant D and C took the deceased on the same day to the I Hospital located at a distance of 624 meters from the day of the instant childcare center, and gave approximately 20 minutes first aid at the said hospital, but did not change the status, and was sent back to the J Hospital. However, at around 12:10 on the same day, the deceased on the day of the deceased’s death as acute scarcity infection (pulic scarin scarcity).

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 22, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The plaintiffs' assertion that Defendant C and D are the principals and teachers of child-care centers in which infants and young children are taking care of.