beta
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2015.08.13 2014나10972

손해배상(기)

Text

1. Of the judgment of the first instance court, the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff, the appointed party) in excess of the money ordered to pay below.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Plaintiff E (H) and Defendant C (I) were students enrolled in the third grade 15 of J Middle School in Yangcheon-gu Seoul, Yangcheon-gu, Seoul around September 201, and Plaintiff F, Plaintiff E’s parents, Plaintiff Eul’s external mother, Plaintiff E’s external mother, and Defendant D and B’s parents.

B. On September 23, 201, at the time of the class for the third grade 15th grade of JJ Middle School in Yangcheon-gu, Seoul on September 23, 201, Defendant C, under the direction of the son at the time of the class for the second grade, “the Plaintiff E continues diving even during the next hours, she was unsatisfying the Plaintiff E’s face during the 3rd grade of the Korean language class.” The Plaintiff E was satisfying the Plaintiff E’s face by gathering his own Korean language, and satisfying the Plaintiff E’s face, and satisfying the Plaintiff E’s face, etc., for about 21 days, the Plaintiff E was injured (hereinafter “the instant injury”).

C. On August 12, 2013, Defendant C was ordered to suspend indictment due to the instant injury at the Seoul Southern District Prosecutors’ Office.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Gap evidence 15-1, Eul evidence 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the main claim

A. (1) According to the fact that Defendant C’s liability for damages was recognized, Defendant C is liable to compensate the damages suffered by the Plaintiffs due to the instant injury as a tortfeasor who inflicted an injury on Plaintiff E.

(2) Even in cases of damages caused by the tort by a minor who has the ability to compensate for damage by Defendant D or B, if there is a proximate causal relation with the minor’s breach of duty by the supervisor, the supervisor shall be liable to compensate as a general tortfeasor.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Da49404, Jun. 9, 1998; 96Da15374, Mar. 28, 1997). According to the above facts of recognition, Defendant C is 15 years of age at the time of the instant injury.