However, a person who caused a school safety accident cannot be said to have a duty to respond to the request of the School Safety Mutual-Aid Association beyond the scope of liability for damages to the beneficiary.

Considering the purport of Article 44(1) of the School Safety Act and the nature and limit of the responsibilities of the person who caused a school safety accident, it is reasonable to view that, if the school safety mutual aid association pays the benefits to a beneficiary, the beneficiary acquires the right to claim damages against the person who caused the school safety accident by subrogation within the limit of the benefits to be deducted. Therefore, the claim by the school safety mutual aid association under Article 44(1) of the School Safety Act is premised on the premise that the beneficiary has the right to claim damages against the person who caused the school safety accident at the time of the payment of the benefits to be deducted. Even if the benefits to be deducted are paid by the school safety mutual aid association after the termination of the right to claim damages, the beneficiary cannot be subrogatedly acquired the right

1. Article 44(1) of the Act on the Prevention of and Compensation for School Safety Accidents (hereinafter “School Safety Act”) provides that “Where a school safety accident occurs due to the beneficiary’s intentional or gross negligence (as referred to in subparagraph 1) or due to the beneficiary’s intentional or gross negligence (as referred to in subparagraph 2), and where the school safety mutual aid association pays the amount of mutual aid benefits to the beneficiary, the school safety mutual aid association may file a claim against the person who caused the school safety accident or his/her guardian (hereinafter “person who caused the school safety accident”).”

The purpose of this regulation is to prevent the beneficiary of the deduction benefits under the School Safety Act from receiving the deduction benefits and the compensation by the person who caused the school safety accident in duplicate, and to prevent the person who caused the accident from being exempted from the compensation due to the payment of the deduction benefits and to secure the finances of the School Safety Mutual Aid Association.

However, a person who caused a school safety accident cannot be said to have a duty to respond to the request of the School Safety Mutual-Aid Association beyond the scope of liability for damages to the beneficiary.

Considering the purport of Article 44(1) of the School Safety Act and the nature and limit of the responsibilities of the person who caused a school safety accident, it is reasonable to deem that, if the School Safety Mutual Aid Association pays the benefits to a beneficiary, the beneficiary obtains the right to claim compensation for damages against the person who caused the school safety accident within the limit of the benefits to be deducted. Therefore, the claim by the School Safety Mutual Aid Association under Article 44(1) of the School Safety Act is premised on the premise that the beneficiary has the right to claim compensation for damages against the person who caused the school safety accident at the time of the payment of the benefits to be deducted. Even if the payment of the benefits to be deducted was made after the termination of the right to claim compensation for damages, the right to claim compensation for damages by the beneficiary cannot be subrogated

2. The reasoning of the first instance judgment cited by the lower court and the evidence duly admitted by the lower court reveal the following facts.

(1) The Plaintiff is a corporation established based on the School Safety Act for the purpose of compensating for students, etc. who suffered damage to their lives and bodies due to school safety accidents, and the Defendant is a company that operates the water play facility called “○○○○○○○○○ World” in Seopo-si, Seopo-si.

(2) On July 3, 2008, 703 students of △△△ Elementary School were playing on-site experiential learning at the above ○○○○○ World. During that process, Nonparty 1, who was enrolled in the first grade of the above school, was discovered and died (hereinafter “instant accident”).

(3) On July 28, 2008, Nonparty 1’s father Nonparty 2 agreed not to raise any civil or criminal objection with the Defendant regarding the instant accident instead of receiving KRW 150 million with the agreed amount (hereinafter “instant agreement”), and received the full amount of KRW 150 million agreed by the Defendant until August 25, 2008.

(4) Afterwards, Nonparty 2 applied for the payment of the deduction benefits under the School Safety Act to the Jeju Special Self-Governing Province School Safety Compensation Review Committee, but dismissed, the request was made to the School Safety Compensation Review Committee. On November 2, 2012, the said Committee rendered a request for reexamination. On November 2, 2012, Nonparty 2 assessed the amount of bereaved family's benefits to be paid by the Plaintiff under the School Safety Act as KRW 191,141,41,418 (the amount of bereaved family's benefits + KRW 38,00,000 + the amount of consolation money + KRW 4,440,113, which was paid by Nonparty 2 as agreed upon by the Defendant, and decided to pay KRW 41,141,418,418, funeral expenses, and KRW 4,440,13,00 to Nonparty 2, the Plaintiff paid KRW 50,505,785, Nov. 27, 2012.

3. Examining the above facts in accordance with the legal principles as seen earlier, Nonparty 2 agreed with the Defendant not to raise any civil or criminal objection against the instant accident, and received the full amount of the agreement. Accordingly, Nonparty 2’s claim for damages against the Defendant was extinguished, and even if the Plaintiff paid the mutual aid benefits to Nonparty 2, the right to claim damages against the Defendant cannot be acquired by subrogation against the Defendant. Accordingly, the Plaintiff cannot claim against the Defendant an amount equivalent to the amount of the said mutual aid benefits.

The judgment below to the same purport is just, and it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the requirements for exercising the right to claim under Article 44(1) of the School Safety Act and the third party with legitimate interest exemption under the proviso of Article 506 of the Civil Act.

4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Sang-hoon (Presiding Justice)