1. The Defendants jointly do so to the designated parties D, KRW 1,942,00, and KRW 500, respectively, to the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the designated parties E.

1. Basic facts

A. Parties D was a student who suffered the following accidents, and the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the Appointed Party E are the parents of the Appointed Party D.

(hereinafter referred to as “the designated parties” and the designated parties are not classified, and all of them are referred to as “the plaintiffs.” Nonparty F is the Defendants’ children.

B. On July 18, 2013, G high schools located in Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam suffered injury, such as damage to the right-hand 3, 4 total number of pages, and scarcitys (hereinafter “the instant injury”), which requires seven weeks’ treatment by using glass windows as hand (hereinafter “the instant injury”).

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The plaintiffs asserted that the plaintiffs suffered the bodily injury of this case since F was in violation of the duty of protection and culture as a person with F's parental authority, because F was clearly different from F's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son.

As to this, the Defendants asserted that F did not have any reason attributable to F, and that the Defendants did not have sufficient proof as to the reason why F should compensate for the acts of F, since F did not have any reason attributable to F, since F did not have any reason attributable to F.

B. Determination 1) The Inspector F of the Accident had been sweaking around D by his arms on the ground that he expressed his desire by the Appointor D. He resisted D to this end, and he was sweeted by F, and he was sweeted to the window by his son, thereby causing the instant injury in light of the son’s hand, which was sweeted to the window. [The grounds for recognition] Gap’s evidence 2, Eul’s evidence 3, and 4 (if there is a serial number, it includes those).

(2) Each entry is against the duty of the supervisor of the minor in question, even if the minor who has caused the liability for damages is held liable for tort on his own due to the minor’s ability to act.