2. Plaintiff 2

Since it is a minor, the legal representative plaintiff 1

[Judgment of the court below]

Representative of the Office of Education:

Law Firm ○○, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

[Defendant-Appellant]

The following facts can be acknowledged in full view of the whole purport of the pleadings in each of the statements in Gap evidence 1 through Gap evidence 4-3, Eul evidence 11, Eul evidence 19-1, and Eul evidence 19-2, unless there is dispute between the parties or in full view of the whole purport of the pleadings:

A. The plaintiff 1 was the father of the deceased who committed suicide as follows, and the plaintiff 2 was the deceased, and the defendant was the person who established and operated the non-party elementary school which was attended by the deceased until the deceased committed suicide, and the non-party 1 was the teacher belonging to the non-party 1 as the teacher belonging to the non-party elementary school, who was in charge of the non-party 1

B. The Deceased committed suicide at home around April 27, 200 of the same year, when he was enrolled in the Non-Party Elementary School from the first grade, and was organized in the O of March 26, 2005 through the O of March 25, 2005.

2. The plaintiff's assertion

The Deceased was subject to collective harassment, such as playing pictures, assault, and intimidation at a school due to a sudden rain, etc., and was under significant stress due to an act of acute rain during the Han-do and Han-do test. As such, it was caused by suicide as above. The Deceased left his workplace with such content as a part of the death, and the Deceased continued to be absent for three consecutive days without any special reason. As Nonparty 1, a teacher in charge, was not only the deceased’s suicide was predicted or could have been prevented, but also the deceased’s suicide was likely to have been predicted or could have been prevented. As such, the deceased’s suicide was caused by the violation of his duty to protect and supervise the students of Nonparty 1, a teacher in charge of suicide, and the Defendant is liable for damages to the deceased as a result of suicide and the Plaintiffs suffered from the suicide.

3. Determination

A. Whether a group bullying constitutes the cause of suicide of the Deceased

According to No. 5 No. 8, the Deceased’s testimony was written on April 26, 205 by Nonparty 1, who was absent from school: He wanted to leave the deceased; / she would be able to look at how he would live in the deceased, and would have been able to live in the old time, and I would like to see any other way except in the school’s corridor. In light of these circumstances, I would like to see that Nonparty 1 was frightened or frighted by Nonparty 6, and that Nonparty 2 would not have any other reason to believe that he was frightened and frighted, and that he would not have any other reason to believe that he was frighten and frighted by Nonparty 1’s frighten and frightened, and that he would not have any frighted or frighted, and that he would have any other reason to be frighted.

B. Whether a person commits suicide due to other causes and violates the duty to protect and supervise a person in question

(1) Facts of recognition

(A) Although the Deceased is not written in the last day, it is at least a certain degree of stress that the Deceased was between the Students referred to therein, as stated by them, or due to their more than one day.

(나) 망인은 2005. 3. 7. .… 사회숙제 너무 하기 어려워, 왜 많은 숙제 중에 사회가…'라는 내용의 ,2005.4.5. 한자시험 너무 많아요, 한자는 싫어요'라는 내용의, 같은 달 15. ‘한자시험 너무 많다. 다 적고 싶은 마음은 있지만 머리가 복잡해진다. 그냥 한자시험 칠 때 그냥 아는 데까지 하고 그냥 한자사랑반 될래. 너무 많다. ...”라는 내용의, 같은 달 9. 급우들이 한자 시험 중 부정행위를 한 것을 담임교사에게 알리는 내용의, 같은 달 11. '학교 가기 싫다. 내 인생이 머길래, 정말 학교 가기 싫다, 공부 그게 머길래. 날 속 상하게 하는 걸까? 몸도 너무 아프다. 난 학교 다니면서 이렇게 힘든 적은 없다. 한자도 싫고 공부도 싫고 맞는 것도 싫고... 이 세상 모든 게 싫다. 푹 쉬고 싶다, …밤에 잠을 못 잔다. …요즘에 눈물을 너무 흘린다.…'라는 내용의 일기를 쓰는 등 한자공부 등으로 인하여 스트레스를 받았다.

(C) On March 18, 198, the Plaintiff 1 and Nonparty 10, the parent of the Deceased, were married on March 18, 198, but the agreement was married on May 24, 2002, and on May 24, 2002, the Deceased did not have access almost to Nonparty 10 as the Plaintiff 1 together with the Plaintiff 1 (the Plaintiff 1 was in a work-related relationship, and was in a living at least 08:0, more than that of the Deceased, and was at the latest retired from office at around 19:00).

(D) The Deceased was a relatively brightness and soft with a relatively brightnessous nature and satisfing, satisfing and satisfing, and so on, he was a highly fluence of appraisal, such as a well-fluence. In addition, the Deceased had expressed that he did not want to die to some fluents, and that he did not have any satisfy.

(2) On the other hand, the following facts can also be recognized if the above facts are added to the evidence Nos. 6, 20, and 21.

(A) Nonparty 1, who is a teacher in charge, became the deceased in the sixth year, and became his fence.

(B) On March 25, 2005, the first subcommittee of the National Human Rights Commission expressed an opinion that it is highly likely that the compulsory preparation of a day-to-day period at an elementary school and the inspection and evaluation thereof may infringe on fundamental rights. Accordingly, Nonparty 1 conducted a day-to-day test in the form of Nonparty 1’s book-to-day test, only the students wishing to suspend the daily test and to take charge of the inspection after going through discussions with the students.

(C) Since the decedent was admitted to a non-party elementary school, he was absent on April 25, 2005, 2 days due to his body death in the first year, 1 day due to family circumstances in the second year, 3 days due to his reduction in the fourth year, 3 days due to his neglect, and 1 day due to his neglect. In the sixth year, the decedent was absent on April 9, 2005 on one occasion due to his body death in the fourth year.

(D) On April 25, 2005, the Deceased sent e-mail to Nonparty 1, who was absent Nonparty 1 and was absent from Ampha on the first day on April 25, 2005, and the Plaintiff 1 did not speak (the Nonparty 1 attempted to have a telephone number on the emergency contact network conducted at the beginning of a semester on April 26, 2005, but did not call with the Plaintiffs or the Deceased, and on April 26, 2005, on the second day on April 26, 2005, he was sent a phone number registered at the emergency contact network and the special group of the deceased’s study where the Deceased belonged, but was unable to call, and on around 16:30, he did not look for the deceased’s house, but did not request the deceased to have a face-to-face on April 27, 2005.

(3) Legal principles

Although teachers at large schools have the duty to protect and supervise students, such duty is not a duty to supervise students on behalf of the legal supervisor, such as persons with parental authority, but a duty to supervise students in accordance with the relevant law and does not affect the whole life relationship of the students, and is limited to the educational activities in schools and the living relationship closely indivisible thereto. Even if such living relationship is recognized, it is predicted or predictability that accidents may normally arise in light of the time and place, the age and experience of the students, social experience, judgment ability, and other various circumstances.

An teacher shall be liable for the breach of his duty of protection and supervision (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da4205, Apr. 11, 2000).

(4) Examining the above facts in light of the above legal principles, even if the above facts were to have caused suicide of the deceased, in light of the facts set forth in subparagraph (2) above, it is difficult to deem that the deceased was predicted or predicted by Nonparty 1, who was an assistant teacher, to have caused suicide. There is no other circumstance to recognize otherwise. Therefore, there is no reason to acknowledge otherwise. Accordingly, the plaintiffs' assertion that Nonparty 1, a assistant teacher, violated the exclusive duty to protect students is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed for each reason, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Jong-soo

Judges Cho Jong-sik