2. B

3. C.

4. D;

2. Each of the plaintiffs' remaining claims is dismissed.

3. 35% of the costs of lawsuit is assessed against the Defendant, and the remainder is assessed against the Plaintiffs.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

(a) The relationship between the parties;

The defendant is a person who operated a U.S. experience camp with the name of "G from the former, N.S. F., and the network H (hereinafter only referred to as "T") is a person who died during the participation of the plaintiff, the plaintiff, the plaintiff B, C, and D, who was a mother of the deceased, the plaintiff, and the sibling of the deceased. The plaintiff is a mother of the deceased, the plaintiff B, C, and D, a sibling of the deceased.

B. Death accident of the deceased;

(1) On July 24, 2012, the Deceased moved to KK in the Yannam-gun of the Seoul High School, along with J Middle School principal, 11 teachers, and 65 students (including one intellectual disability student and one development disability student) in order to participate in the instant camp for 3-day and 4-day activities, and the Defendant moved to KK in the Yannam-gun of the Yannam-gun of the Yannam-gun. The Defendant was not informed of the fact that the 66 students including the Deceased, including the Deceased, were moved to the above principal of the school and the teachers at the time of the Yannam-gun, leading only 66 students including the Deceased, and continued the instant camp, and the fact that the students with intellectual disability and development disability, among the students with the above principal of the school and the teachers at the time of the camping, were included in the camp.

(2) The Defendant conducted the instant camp with the help of the Defendant’s wife South Korea, his wife, and her assistant instructors employed through the Internet recruitment notice (hereinafter collectively referred to as the Defendant and 3 above hereinafter referred to as “Defendant, etc.”). The Defendant did not have the water safety personnel qualification certificate, emergency measures license, etc., and the Defendant did not have the qualifications for juvenile guidance or rescue.

(3) The south-east coast of K, where the Defendant et al. proceeds from the instant camping, is both the sea and the high tide of birds, no sign or information sign was installed, and the Defendant et al. did not inform the students of the law of entering a life jackets or pay life jackets individually. Unlike the guidance materials provided by the Defendant for the instant camping, the Defendant et al. did not keep life jackets or life jackets on the coast.

(4) On July 25, 2012, around 13:48, the Deceased, without having a life jackets installed, carried out water play on the coast as well as with other students, and was peeped into the steering. The deceased L (195 birth, male) was up to the water to rescue the Deceased, and went away from the deceased, and other students who observed this request the structure of the deceased and the deceased L (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased, etc.”) with the view to saving the Deceased. However, on the ground that other students who observed the camp of this case were to go to the teachers of the camp of this case, they refused to enter the water and refused to rescue the Deceased, etc. on the ground that they were not equipped with life-saving equipment, and eventually, the Deceased, etc. died due to the death (hereinafter referred to as the “accident in this case”). The progress of the accident in the civil and criminal case caused by the accident in this case.

(1) On December 10, 2012 due to the instant accident, M, the principal of the Defendant and J Middle School, was prosecuted for the crime of occupational injury and death (Seoul District Court Decision 2012 High Court Decision 2012 High Court Decision 1824), and on February 19, 2013, M, in the course of the instant camp, shall prepare measures to prevent and cope with safety accidents by ascertaining in advance the place of experience, dangerous areas, life-saving equipment and rescue personnel, etc., and the Defendant neglected his duty of care to strictly control water play on the coast of the early current course and to prevent safety accidents by placing life-saving equipment and rescue personnel, and caused the death of the deceased and deceased L by neglecting the duty of care to prevent safety accidents. The Defendant was convicted of having been sentenced to suspension of the execution of the sentence of imprisonment without prison labor for three years and 80 hours on June, and M, one year and one year and two years, respectively.

(2) Meanwhile, on September 4, 2012, the Plaintiffs filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant and I against the Defendant and I seeking compensation for the deceased’s death at this court. On May 3, 2013, when the instant case was pending, the appellate court of the said criminal case (Seoul District Court 2013-424) adjusted that “I shall pay the Plaintiffs KRW 80,000,000, and the Plaintiffs shall waive the remainder of the claim against I. Accordingly, I paid KRW 80,000 to the Plaintiffs.

(3) Thereafter, on May 15, 2013, the appellate court dismissed all appeals against the Defendant to the effect of mistake of facts and unreasonable sentencing, and rejected the allegation of mistake of facts against M, but reversed the judgment of the lower court and sentenced the judgment to a fine of KRW 5,00,000,000. On May 22, 2013, the Defendant appealed against the above judgment (Supreme Court Decision 2013Do6438).

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7 (each number is included; hereinafter the same shall apply), significant facts in this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

(a) Occurrence of liability for damages;

According to the above facts, the defendant, as the operator of the camp of this case, was negligent in neglecting his duty of care to protect and supervise the students, such as assigning persons qualified for juvenile guidance and lifesaving, guiding students, controlling students' water play, and keeping rescue equipment on the shore, and led to the death of the deceased due to the accident of this case. Thus, the defendant is liable for damages suffered by the deceased and the plaintiffs due to the accident of this case.

B. Scope of liability for damages

(1) The deceased’s lost income

The Deceased was able to work for 22 days each month from February 2, 2022, when he/she reaches 23 years of age, excluding the period of military service after 20 years of age, as NN’s male, for the age of 13 years of age 5 months of age, 65.04 years of age, and excluding the period of military service after 20 years of age, until February 2, 2059, which is 60 years of age.

Since the Deceased was a middle student residing in the city at the time of the instant accident and did not have any income, it is deemed that he could have earned an income equivalent to the urban daily wage during the operation period. However, the Deceased’s intellectual disability 3 with low intelligence compared to the general public is as seen earlier. As such, considering the Deceased’s disability grade, the Deceased’s ability to work for the deceased at the time of his death is deemed to have had labor ability equivalent to 70% of the ordinary worker at the time of his death, and the unit price of the Deceased’s wage is assessed as KRW 57,010 (i.e., the unit price of the daily wage of the ordinary worker 81,443 x 0.7, less than the daily wage of the ordinary worker x 0.7, less than the normal worker hereinafter the same shall apply). At the time of the accident, the present price is calculated according to the discount method that deducts the intermediary interest at the rate of 5/12 percent per month, and the living cost is calculated as 1/3 of income.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

(2) Limitation of liability

As seen earlier, the deceased’s intellectual disability Grade 3 is a disabled person of Grade A, and according to the statements in the evidence No. 7, even if 0, who is a assistant instructor at the time of the accident in this case, paid attention twice to the effect that “I am fright at the place where water was driven,” and that “I am am in depth,” several students, including the deceased, engaged in water play, and the accident in this case occurred, and as a result, taking into account all the circumstances revealed in the argument in this case, such as the deceased’s age, the background and consequence of the accident in this case, and the degree of negligence contributed to the accident in both the Defendant and the J Middle School Teachers and Staff, it is reasonable to limit the Defendant’s liability for damages to 70% of the amount of damages. As such, the amount of damages of the deceased shall be 114,067,529 won (=162,953,613 won x 0.7).

(3) As seen earlier, the mutual aidI paid KRW 80,00,000 to the Plaintiffs as damages for the instant accident according to the conciliation of the court. Accordingly, the amount to be deducted is ultimately KRW 34,067,529 (i.e., KRW 114,067,529-80,000).

(4) Consolation money

The defendant has a duty to pay consolation money to the deceased and the plaintiffs in monetary form due to the accident of this case. Considering all the circumstances shown in the arguments of this case, such as the deceased's age, family relation, background of the accident of this case, degree of negligence of the parties concerned, and the amount paid to the plaintiffs in connection with the accident of this case, it is reasonable to determine consolation money of the deceased as KRW 30,000,000, consolation money of the plaintiff A as KRW 15,000, and KRW 5,000,000, consolation money of the plaintiff Eul, C, and D as KRW 5,00,000, respectively.

(5) Inheritance relations

Inasmuch as there is no dispute between the parties that the deceased died at the time of the instant accident, the Plaintiff A, a mother of the deceased, pursuant to Article 1000(1) of the Civil Act, succeeded to all the amount of KRW 64,067,529 (i.e., lost income of KRW 34,067,529 + 30,000,000).

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay calculated at the annual rate of 20% per annum under the Civil Act from September 21, 2012 to August 14, 2012, where it is deemed necessary to dispute over the existence or scope of the Defendant’s obligation to pay damages for delay to the Plaintiff A, the sum of KRW 64,067,529 (=64,067,529 +15,000,000) and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5,00,000 per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings to the Plaintiffs B, C, and D, respectively, as solatium, after the date of the instant accident. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 23788, Sep. 21, 2012>

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims of this case are justified within the scope of the above recognition, and each of the remaining claims is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Hong-hoon

Judge Powers Governing Authority