beta
(영문) 대구지방법원 2014.10.23 2013가합8612

손해배상(기)

Text

1. Defendant D, Defendant E, Defendant F, Defendant G, Defendant H, Defendant J, Defendant K, Defendant M, Defendant M, Defendant N, Defendant N, Defendant N, and DefendantO.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The status of the parties 1) Plaintiff A and Plaintiff B are the parents of W(X) and Plaintiff C is the leakage of W. 2) Defendants D, Defendant G, Defendant J, Defendant M, and Defendant P (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Defendant aggressor students”) together with W and Y middle schools located in Busan.

3) Defendant E, Defendant H, and Defendant I, each parent (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the parent of the Defendant”) of the Defendant P (AB), Defendant H, and Defendant I, Defendant K, Defendant L, Defendant J (AB), Defendant N, and DefendantO, respectively.

(4) As of 201, Defendant S was a teacher in W, with the second half of Y middle school as of 201, and Defendant T was a teacher in W, with the fourth half of Y middle school as of 2012. Defendant U was a teacher in W, with the fourth half of Y middle school as of 2012. Defendant U was the principal in 201, and Defendant V was the principal in Y middle school as of 2012.

Defendant Gyeongbuk-do is a local government with a Y middle school located.

B. The Defendant aggressor student committed a harmful act 1) The Defendant aggressor student was bullying between 2011 and 2013. The Defendant aggressor student committed a harmful act against W (hereinafter “instant harmful act”). The Defendant aggressor student committed a harmful act against W.

(2) The instant harmful act against W by the Defendant aggressor was not classified, but was made at a conspicuous place such as classroom, corridor, etc., and a large number of students appeared.

Nevertheless, the harmful act of this case was not reported.

3) The fact that Defendant D, Defendant J, etc., Defendant M and Defendant P were going to go with AE, etc., and that there was a fact that many students of Y middle schools were known to have been aware of the fact that Defendant D, Defendant M and Defendant P did not take money from other friendships. 4) In the survey conducted against Y middle school students on or around June 2012, Defendant D et al., Defendant D et al. were categorized as students who habitually fright back their friendships, and CCTV was installed.