2. The plaintiffs' remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, 2/5 are assessed against the Plaintiffs, and the remainder are assessed against the Defendant.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

A. Status of the parties

1) On April 1, 2013, the deceased non-party 1 (the deceased non-party 1, Feb. 4, 2001, hereinafter “the deceased”) was a half-year student of ○○ Elementary School located in the Southern-gu ( Address omitted) at Port-si as of April 1, 201, and the plaintiffs are the parents of the deceased.

2) The Defendant is a corporation established to carry out a mutual aid project for school safety accidents pursuant to the Act on the Prevention of and Compensation for School Safety Accidents (hereinafter “School Safety Act”), which has joined the ○○ Elementary School’s accession.

B. The deceased’s death history, etc.

1) The Deceased was a disabled person in the third degree in the mental retardation, and was in the class in the special class in the year of 2012, but was in the fifth grade, and was placed in the second class in the integrated class in which non-disabled students and disabled students jointly take lessons. The Deceased received lessons in the remaining subjects in the second grade in the fifth grade except for receiving lessons in Korean language and veterinary subjects in the increased class, which is a special class at the ○ elementary school. Among them, special education professionals assisted the Deceased to take lessons in the class next to the Deceased.

2) On April 1, 2013, Nonparty 2: (a) had the students gather in the playground among Nonparty 3 and Nonparty 4 of the sports instructor, who participated in the sports course on April 1, 2013; and (b) had the students gather in the playground from 09:50 to 10:30 meters.

3) On April 1, 2013, the Deceased attended the above sports classes, around 09:50 on April 1, 2013, and while other students are less than those of the two wheels of the sports field (150 meters in length of the sports field track), the Deceased, with Nonparty 3, walked with Nonparty 3, and moved to the departure point of the sports field for a long time with other students at around 09:55 after a stress name and preparation campaign with other students.

4) The Deceased, who gets off Nonparty 3’s hand and laid off the quizzle of the playground, who was the second quizzle in 10:15, she was not allowed to cover the 10:15, and was laid down on the playground. The deceased’s non-party 3, who, in turn, she was unsat down of the face, she was unsat down of the face, she was unsat down of the face, and she was flad up with sand laid off on the face of the Deceased, and was caused by the Deceased. However, the Deceased refused to take off the sat down on the playground.

5) Nonparty 3, in the event that Nonparty 3 caused the deceased’s death as a result of detention, expected to take place on his own at an educational level as well as to make it possible for the deceased to go up with his arms in the playgrounds, and had the deceased go up to his arms. Nonparty 3, along with Nonparty 5, reported to the deceased at a point where approximately about 15 meters away from the special teacher Nonparty 5.

6) 잠시 후 소외 5가 다시 망인을 설득하기 위해 망인에게 다가가 망인의 얼굴이 창백하고 입술이 파랗게 된 것을 발견하였고, 보건교사 소외 6을 부른 후 10:25경 119에 신고하였고, 소외 4와 소외 6이 번갈아 가며 망인에게 심폐소생술을 시도하였다. 망인은 10:40경 포항성모병원 응급실로 후송되었으나, 결국 사망하였다(이하 ‘이 사건 사고’라 한다).

7) The autopsy report (No. 3) prepared on April 1, 2013 by the doctor non-party 7 of the Posisung Hospital’s medical doctor is called “unexit” the deceased’s private person. According to the autopsy report (Evidence No. 4) prepared on April 23, 2013 by Non-party 8 of the law staff of the National Institute of Scientific Investigation at the South Part of the National Institute of Law, the non-party 8 of the law staff of the National Institute of Scientific Investigation at the South Part of the Republic of Korea, who was in charge of the law, prepared on April 23, 2013.

(c) Application for payment and return of mutual aid benefits;

On November 19, 2013, the Plaintiffs filed an application with the Defendant for the payment of deduction benefits following the death of the Deceased, but the Defendant rejected the said application on November 27, 2013 on the ground that “The Defendant’s payment risk exists in the event that the Defendant pays deduction benefits because the instant accident is pending in the court in a lawsuit with respect to the accident, and the deceased’s private person does not constitute a disease provided for in Article 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the School Safety Act as an aesthetic and acute funeral service.”

(d) Relevant statutes;

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

[Reasons for Recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap's statements or images, Gap's evidence 1 through 5, 10, 14, Eul's evidence 1 through 4 (including a Serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply), non-party 3's testimony, the court's testimony of the non-party 3, 00 elementary school, Gyeongbuk University Hospital's Soft Hospital, and each fact-finding with respect to Posidong Hospital, the purport of the whole pleadings as a whole

2. Occurrence of liability to pay mutual aid benefits;

A. Relevant legal principles

The former part of Article 2 subparag. 6 of the School Safety Act provides that "school safety accident" means an accident that happens during educational activities and that causes damage to the life or body of students, teachers, or participants in educational activities, and does not separately provide for the cause of the accident. Therefore, an accident that happens during the "educational activities" under Article 2 subparag. 4 of the School Safety Act and Article 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act shall be deemed to constitute a school safety accident under the School Safety Act in the event of an accident that causes damage to the life or body of students, teachers, or participants in educational activities.

In addition, Article 39 of the School Safety Act and Article 40 of the same Act provide that the amount of bereaved family benefits and funeral expenses shall be paid to “where a person under mutual aid dies due to a school safety accident.” Thus, in order to receive bereaved family benefits and funeral expenses, there exists a causal relationship between the school safety accident and the death. However, if the principal cause of death overlaps with the principal cause of death and at least the school safety accident caused death, even though there is no direct relationship with the school safety accident, if the principal cause of death overlaps with the principal cause of death, it should be deemed that there exists a causal relationship between the death. The causal relationship does not necessarily have to be proved by medical and natural science, and even if it is presumed that there is a proximate causal relationship between the school safety accident and the death when considering all the circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Da11961, Dec. 13, 2012)

B. Determination

Based on the above legal principles, if the accident of this case was found to fall under the school safety accident of the deceased as stipulated in Article 2 subparag. 6 of the School Safety Act, it is reasonable to view that the physical condition of the deceased was not high, and that there was no physical or mental stress on the day of the death of the deceased, and the following facts and circumstances recognized as the whole. ① On April 1, 2013, the accident of this case was occurred together with Nonparty 2 and Nonparty 3 and the sports instructor’s physical or mental distress on the day of the death of the deceased. ② The accident was presumed to have occurred during educational activities, and it is hard to view that it was hard for the deceased to view that there was no physical or mental stress on the day of the death of the deceased. ③ Even if there was no physical or mental stress on the day of the death of the deceased, it is hard to see that the accident was likely to occur on the day of the death of the deceased.

C. Sub-decision

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay mutual aid benefits to the plaintiffs, who are parents of the deceased, in accordance with the School Safety Act.

3. Scope of liability to pay mutual aid benefits;

(a) Medical care benefits (Article 36 of the School Safety Act);

Plaintiff 1: 490,110 won for medical expenses

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap No. 7

(b) Survivors' benefits (Article 39 of the School Safety Act);

(i) Actual income;

A) Facts and evaluation of recognition

(a) Gender: Male and date of birth: February 4, 2001 (the remaining 12 years of age 12 and 28 months of age at the time of death);

(b) Monetary assessment of operating capacity: Wages on an ordinary person engaged in urban daily labor (based on the second half of 2015, which was based on the time the argument in this case was concluded) equivalent to 44,783 won (based on the second half of 2015, hereinafter the same shall apply) equivalent to 50% of the total operating capacity.

As to this, the defendant asserts that, in light of the degree of disability of the deceased and the livelihood of the deceased at the time of their death, it is reasonable to view that it is practically impossible to obtain income such as non-disabled persons even if the deceased attains the economic age, and thus, future employment is not possible. Therefore, the defendant asserts that the lost income based on the premise that the deceased is able to be employed in the future should be excluded.

In light of the above argument that there is a case where the disabled in the second degree of disability than the deceased is employed and income is earned by the disabled in the process of his/her employment through science and alcohol development, education and training, etc., even though he/she does not have any mental disability as a member of the State, society, and the Constitution of the Republic of Korea and the highest ideology of the national system, which state the dignity and value of the deceased as a human being as a human being as a member of the State, and "the disabled shall have the right to participate in political, economic, social, cultural, and all other activities at the time of the accident" (Article 4), and the purport of Article 8 (1) of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities cannot be determined exclusively for reasons that he/she cannot be discriminated against the disabled in all areas of political, economic, social, and cultural life, and that there is a case where the disabled in the second degree of disability is more disabled than the deceased.

However, it cannot be ruled out the reality that the deceased suffered from the third grade disability at the time of the accident in this case. Therefore, it is difficult to expect that the deceased will have the ability equivalent to that of the non-disabled person even though it is possible to improve his ability for living or technology through education and training in the future, and it is reasonable to presume that the deceased will have the ability to work at a level equivalent to 50% compared to that of the ordinary workers engaged in urban daily work.

(3) Operation period: From February 4, 2020, when the deceased reached 19 years of age (the deceased is a mentally disabled person of Grade III who is exempted from military service under the Military Service Act, and thus does not exclude the period of military service from the operation period), 492 months from February 3, 206, when the deceased reached 60 years of age.

(d) Ratio of loss of labor capacity: 100%;

(5) Deductions for living expenses: 35% (attached Table 7 of Enforcement Decree of the School Safety Act)

B) Calculation: 142,106,953 won (=44,783 won x 22 days x 221.9045 (= 293.053 - 71.548) x 65%) when the deceased’s lost income is converted at a present price in accordance with the Hofmanial Calculation Act.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy Facts, empirical rules, significant facts in this court, Gap evidence 13, 15, and Eul evidence 7

2) Consolation money (attached Table 6 of the Enforcement Decree of the School Safety Act)

A) Deceased: 20,000,000 won

B) Plaintiffs: Each 10,000,000 won

(c) Funeral expenses (Article 40 of the School Safety Act);

Plaintiff 1: 8,144,300 won [A daily wage of 81,443 won in part of a construction work at the time of the instant accident] according to an investigation report on the actual status of wages issued by the Korea Construction Association (=81,443 won in part of the construction work at the time of the instant accident]

D. Whether comparative negligence exists

As the Defendant asserts that the portion corresponding to the deceased’s negligence should be reduced from monetary claims, it is reasonable to view that Article 19-2(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the School Safety Act provides that “The Mutual-Aid Association may set off if the deceased was at fault in calculating disability benefits, nursing benefits, and bereaved family’s benefits pursuant to Articles 37 through 39 of the Act.” However, the above assertion is not acceptable on the ground that there is no assertion or proof as to what kind of negligence the deceased was in connection with the accident in this case, since the mutual aid system under the School Safety Act has the nature of directly compensating the damage suffered by the insured due to the accident in social security level, the system and purport of compensating for damages caused by tort and its purport or purpose are different from that of the payment of benefits under the School Safety Accident Compensation Act, it is difficult to view that the above provision in Article 9-2(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the School Safety Act does not apply to cases where the above provision in the Enforcement Decree of the School Safety Act limits the amount of benefits under Article 9(2).

(e) Inheritance;

(i)the amount of inheritance coverage;

162,106,953 won (=142,106,953 won of lost income of the Deceased + 20,000,000 won of consolation money of the Deceased)

2) An inheritor

Plaintiffs: Each 1/2 equity

(iii) calculation;

Plaintiffs: Each of 81,053,476 won (=162,106,953 won x 1/2)

(f) Mutual aid benefits;

1) Plaintiff 1: 99,687,886 won (=the above 81,053,476 won + Medical care benefit of 490,110 won + funeral expense of 8,14,300 won + 10,000 won for consolation money of Plaintiff 1)

2) Plaintiff 2: 91,053,476 won (=the above KRW 81,053,476 + Plaintiff 2’s consolation money of KRW 10,000,000)

(g)the starting point of counting damages for delay;

The main text of Article 41(2) and (4) of the School Safety Act provides that "the Mutual-Aid Association shall determine whether to pay the deduction benefits within 14 days from the date on which the applicant for the deduction benefits is made, and where the Mutual-Aid Association has decided to pay the deduction benefits, it shall pay the applicant for the deduction benefits without delay." In light of the content of the above provision and the purport of the mutual-aid project under the School Safety Act, the defendant's delayed performance liability for the above recognized amount shall not be deemed to have occurred immediately from the date of the accident. Where the plaintiffs requested the payment of the deduction benefits to the defendant and there is no decision as to whether to pay it, it shall be reasonable to view that there is a delay in payment liability for the whole claim amount from the day following the date of the decision.

In this case, the fact that the plaintiffs applied for the payment of deduction benefits to the defendant on November 19, 2013, but they decided not to accept the above application on the 27th of the same month is as seen earlier, and thus, the defendant should pay interest in arrears from November 28, 2013, after the decision to pay the above deduction benefits was made.

(h) Sub-determination

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff 1, who is the father of the deceased, the amount of deduction benefits, the amount of KRW 99,687,886 above, and the amount of KRW 91,053,476 above to Plaintiff 2, who is the mother of the Deceased, as well as damages for delay calculated at each rate of KRW 5% per annum under the Civil Act, from November 28, 2013 to September 25, 2015, which is deemed reasonable for the Defendant to dispute the existence and scope of the obligation.

4. Conclusion

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

[Attachment] Relevant Statutes: omitted

Judges Yellow-su (Presiding Judge)