Since it is a minor, the legal representative B

2. B

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1

Attorney Sung-sung et al., Counsel for the plaintiff

Law Firm Bululul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Attorney Hy-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

The defendant jointly with the co-defendant C and D of the first instance trial and paid to the plaintiff A 297,628,378 won, 20,000,000 won to the plaintiff B, and 12% interest per annum from July 15, 2017 to the service date of the complaint of this case, and from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. Purport of appeal

The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance regarding the defendant shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim against the defendant corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed.

A. Status of the parties

1) Plaintiff A is the children of Plaintiff B, and E is the co-defendant C of the first instance trial (hereinafter referred to as “C”).

2) The Plaintiff A and E were enrolled in the sixth grade 1 of G elementary school located in F in the permanent residence in 2017, and the Co-Defendant D of the first instance trial (hereinafter “D”) held office as a teacher of the above class at the time.

3) The Defendant is a local government that establishes and operates a G elementary school.

B. Occurrence of the instant accident

1) On July 13, 2017, from July 13, 2017 to July 14, 2017, G elementary schools conducted 1 'Icp' (hereinafter referred to as the "c 'c 'c 'c 'c 'c ' of this case') to conduct on-site experience studies for 5 and 6 - from July 13, 2017 to July 14, 201. A 20 persons, including Plaintiff A and E, were present at the instant camp, and four persons, including Plaintiff A and E, were accompanied by the leader.

2) On July 13, 2017, the camp of this case started at 8:00 a.m. from 11:30 p.m. to 3:00 p.m., arrived at a department-type science museum located in Gyeonggi-do, and came to know-how with in-depth training activities and viewing in the science museum, move from 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. and was assigned for viewing, moving from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. to 3:0 p.m., and then was assigned for irrigation, and then do so. After moving from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. to 9:0 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., he was composed of 10 p.m. to H and had an Im. preparation hours from 9:0 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.

3) 그런데 E은 2017. 7. 13. 오후에 방문한 과천과학관에서 당시 이 사건 캠프에 함께 참석하였던 같은 반 친구 J에게, 점심값으로 돈을 바꿔줘서 고맙다며 장난감 활 세트(활 1개, 화살 5개)를 선물로 사주었다. 위 활 세트는 50㎝ 정도 되는 크기1)로 속이 보이는 비닐봉지에 들어 있었는데, J이 E으로부터 위 활 세트를 선물받은 뒤 계속 보이는 상태로 들고 다녔으나, 별다른 조치가 취해지지 않았다.

4) On July 13, 2017, G elementary school teachers were going to go through a direction to students from 10:00 p.m. to 12:00 a.m. on July 14, 2017. However, there was a room in the immediately following the instruction, and some students did not go to a view in a room or shower room, etc. even after July 14, 2017.

5) 위 숙소 Q호에서는 원고 A, E, J 등이 취침을 하기로 되어 있었는데, J은 2017. 7. 14, 오전 12:00경 무렵까지 휴대폰 게임 등을 하다가 배터리도 떨어지고 휴대폰 게임도 지겨워지자, 2017. 7. 13. 오후에 E으로부터 선물받은 장난감 활 세트를 꺼내서, 상단에 고무패킹이 붙어 있는 나무로 된 장난감 화살을 장난감 활에 끼워 벽이나 장롱에 맞추고, 원고 A은 베개로 몸을 가린 채 옆에 서서 구경을 하며 놀고 있었다. 그런데 E은 J이 가지고 있던 장난감 화살들 중 1개를 가지고 가 상단의 고무패킹을 제거한 후 끝을 칼(E이 집에서 가지고 와 소지하고 있던 커터 칼이다)로 깎은 다음 이를 J이 가지고 놀던 활에 끼워 원고 A을 향해 겨누었고, 원고 A은 베개로 자신의 얼굴을 가렸다. 그 사이 J이 E에게 '뾰족한 화살로 사람을 쏘면 다친다. 하지 말라.'고 말하였으나, E은 멈추지 않았고, 이후 원고 A을 향해 위 화살을 겨누고 있다가, 원고 A이 베개를 치우고 E을 쳐다보자, 원고 A을 향해 위 화살을 쏘았다. 위 화살은 원고 A의 좌측 안구에 맞았다(이하 '이 사건 사고'라고 한다).

6) After the instant accident, Plaintiff A was sent back to K Hospital located in Suwon-si, Suwon-si, but was diagnosed as “the inside and outside heat, each heat, electric discharge blood, credit white, and credit red loan loss.”

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 24, Eul evidence Nos. 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

A. D who is a public official belonging to the defendant is a teacher of the plaintiff A and E in the instant camp, which is an extracurricular educational activity, and is insufficient for the plaintiff A and E to provide appropriate safety education and safety measures to young students who have difficulty in behavioral control, and check and supervise whether they possess dangerous objects, educate them about their possession, and take appropriate emergency measures at the time of the accident, and neglecting the duty of protection and supervision as mentioned above at the time of the accident. The defendant is the employer of D who is a public official, in accordance with Article 2 of the State Compensation Act.

B. Therefore, the defendant is obligated to protect and supervise E, who is a person with parental authority at the age of 12, but neglected it and caused E to cause the instant accident (i.e., active damages equivalent to the medical expenses of the plaintiff (i., 4,75,139 won + future medical expenses of 35,000,000 won). The defendant is obligated to pay consolation money to the plaintiff 27,873,239,30, 300, 2000, 297, 3075, 207, 309, 3075, 207, 307, 207, 307, 207, 305, 307, 207, 3005, 307, 207, 300, 307, 307, 205, 307, 200).

3. Establishment of liability for damages;

A. Relevant legal principles

The principal of a school or a teacher established and operated by a local government is obligated to protect and supervise students. Such duty to protect and supervise students is not a duty to supervise students on behalf of a legal supervisor, such as a person with parental authority, under the Education Act, and does not affect all the students’ living relationship in the school. However, if it is predicted or predictability that an accident may normally occur in school life in consideration of the time and place of educational activities, the offender’s ability to distinguish educational activities, the offender’s personality and conduct, the relationship between the perpetrator and the victim, and other various circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da24318, Apr. 26, 2007).

B. Determination

1) In full view of the facts acknowledged earlier and the following circumstances, Gap evidence Nos. 10, Eul evidence Nos. 10, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3, 6, 13 and 14, the accident of this case can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the overall purport of the pleadings. The accident of this case was caused by the negligence of D and damages suffered by the plaintiffs, who were public officials belonging to the defendant, in accordance with Article 2 of the State Compensation Act, by removing the safety devices for toy strings, which are likely to inflict an injury without being affected by the students of six years of the elementary school. The accident of this case was caused by the accident of this case, including D, in which the first grade students of the elementary school and high grade students of the elementary school, can normally be predicted from the camp of this case including the camp of this case. The accident of this case was caused by neglecting the student's duty to inspect the goods possessed by the students, and there was considerable causation between D's negligence and damages suffered by the plaintiffs.

(1) A teacher’s duty to protect and supervise students on behalf of a legal supervisor, such as a person with parental authority, etc., or a student participating in an experiential learning may entirely escape from the protection and supervision of a person with parental authority, etc. and be placed under the protection and supervision of a school. Therefore, teachers need to have a heavier duty of care.

② The camp of this case constitutes one-year experience learning activity for students in 5 to 6 at an elementary school. The time during which the accident of this case occurred constitutes a living relationship closely related to educational activities conducted at low time and qualitative and non-hours (as stated in the evidence Nos. 23 and 24, some of the teachers of the camp of this case were transferred from J through a mobile phone cover of the accident of this case on July 14, 2017. The Plaintiff’s condition was reported to 12:30 a.m., and the Plaintiff’s condition was sent to the near university hospital (K hospital) and sent to the nearest university hospital for 1:0 a.m. 2017 a.m. 12:50 p. 14.m., the time during which the accident of this case occurred can be considered to have been delayed by taking into account the following circumstances: 6 p.m., the teacher’s life was delayed by taking into account where the accident of this case occurred.

③ It is difficult to view that students in the sixth-year course of elementary school who were 11 to 12 years old have the duty to protect and supervise the school’s side solely on the ground that they were engaged in general safety education, such as prohibiting students from possessing harmful tools, preventing any danger and injury, and observing time during the instant campaign, etc. However, despite the above education, it is easy for the students to easily expect that they did not follow the above education and go to one another without locking to one another during the course (and even under the written evidence Nos. 10 and 24, according to the facts stated above, the J continued to appear in the P.M. on the day preceding the instant accident, and the fact that the school after the instant accident, did not mention the above circumstances that the students had been in danger, and did not go to one another during the course of their learning (the fact that it did not appear in the P.S.).

④ 이 사건 캠프에 참가한 D을 비롯한 G초등학교 교사들은 학생들이 상해를 가할 소지가 있는 위험한 장난감을 소지하지는 아니하였는지, 취침시간에 실제 취침을 하고 있는지 지도·감독할 의무가 있다. 그런데 위 교사들은 구체적으로 학생들의 소지품을 확인하여 주의를 주는 조치를 취하지 아니한 것으로 보이고[앞서 살펴본 바와 같이 학교 구내와 가정을 떠나 진행된 이 사건 캠프로 학생들이 들뜨고 해이해지기 쉬운 상황에 있었을 뿐만 아니라, 비록 장난감 활 세트라고 하더라도 그 크기가 50cm 정도였기 떄문에 위험한 결과를 일으킬 수도 있는 활 세트를 J이 2017. 7. 13. 오후부터 친구들과 함께 계속 보이는 상태로 들고 다녔는데도, 별다른 조치가 취해지지 않았다(갑 제11, 24호증)3)], 위 교사들이 작성한 경위서에 의하더라도 위 교사들이 2017. 7. 14. 오전 12:00경까지는 학생들 숙소에 별도로 감독자를 배치하여 취침 지도를 실시하였으나, 그 이후에는 학생의 실제 취침 여부를 확인하는 등의 조치를 취하지 아니한 것으로 보인다(J과 원고 A이 장난감 활 세트를 꺼내서 놀기 시작한 시간부터 E이 화살에서 고무패킹를 제거하고 칼로 화살 끝을 깎은 후 이 사건 사고를 일으킬 때까지 걸린 시간이 아주 짧은 것으로도 보이지 않는다). 결국 그 당시 인솔 교사들이 학생들 전부가 원래 취침해야 할 방에서 방의 불을 끄고 취침에 들어간 것을 확인하지는 못한 것으로 보이는 점,4) 인솔 교사들의 취침 지도가 있었던 시각과 이 사건 사고가 발생한 시각 사이에 큰 차이가 있지 않은 것으로 보이는 점 등에 비추어 보면, 학생들에 대하여 취침 등에 관한 지도·감독이 제대로 이루어졌다고 보기 어렵다.

2) The Plaintiffs asserted to the effect that D had caused the real name of the Plaintiff A to the wind that D could not take appropriate emergency measures after the occurrence of the accident by negligence not residing in the vicinity of E and A’s accommodation at the time of the instant accident. However, there is no evidence to deem that D had not taken appropriate emergency measures immediately after the instant accident occurred, and there is no evidence to deem that Plaintiff A could have prevented the real name of the proposal if D had taken additional emergency measures immediately after the instant accident occurred.

4) The relationship between the defendant and C’s liability

E is a person under 12 years of age who is merely the sixth grade of elementary school at the time of the accident in this case and is entirely under the care and supervision of his parents. As such, father C, his father, also has the duty to maintain daily guidance and supervision so that E does not commit any tort, such as explaining necessary precautions, etc. for the prevention of accidents. Nevertheless, C, who neglected such duty of protection and supervision, caused the remaining E to commit such tort, and C’s negligence and damages suffered by the Plaintiffs, and therefore, C is liable for compensation for the damages suffered by the Plaintiffs, and C and the Defendant, as joint tortfeasor, constitutes joint and several liability.

5) Limitation on liability

다만, 이 사건 사고는 의도적으로 발생한 것이 아니라 E의 장난 또는 부주의에 의하여 발생하였고 교육활동 자체에 내재하는 위험이 현실화된 사고는 아닌 점, 원고 A은 그 연령 및 지적 성숙도에 비추어 어느 정도 위험에 대한 판단 및 대처가 가능한 초등학교 6학년 학생으로 이 사건 사고 당시 취침교육에 따르지 아니한 채 장난감 화살 놀이에 동참하였고 E이 위와 같이 뾰족한 화살을 겨누는 것을 본 이상 베개로 얼굴을 계속 가리고 있거나 소리를 지르거나 일정한 거리를 두고 이동하는 등의 조치를 취할 수 있었을 것으로 보임에도 그러한 정도의 주의를 기울이지는 아니한 점 등의 사정이 있으므로, 그러한 사정을 피고 및 C이 배상하여야 할 손해배상액의 산정에 있어 이를 참작하기로 한다. 위와 같은 이 사건 사고의 발생 경위, 원고 A의 과실 내용, 당사자의 나이 및 관계, 사고 발생의 기여도 등 이 사건 변론에 나타난 여러 사정들을 고려하면, 이 사건 사고에 대한 피고 및 C의 책임비율을 90%로 제한한다.

4. Scope of liability for damages

The reasoning for this Court's explanation is as follows, and this part of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance.

○ The 11th, 2, 4, and 6th, “the date of closing argument” of the first instance court shall be read as “the date of closing argument in the first instance court”; the 11th, 8, and 5th, 12th, and 7th, 13th, all “this court” of the first instance court shall be read as “the date of closing argument in the first instance court”; and the 11th, 2th, as “the

The defendant C and the Gyeongbuk-do jointly cooperate with the defendant as the joint tortfeasor in the 13th sentence of the judgment of the court of first instance, and the 13th sentence of the 14th sentence of the 13th sentence of the 13th sentence of the 14th sentence of the 14th sentence of the 14th sentence of the 14th sentence of the 14th sentence of the 14th sentence of the 14th sentence of the 14th sentence of the 14th

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims against the defendant are justified within the scope of each recognition, and the remaining claims shall be dismissed as they are without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the defendant's appeal against the plaintiffs is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Park Young-ju

Judges Notarial Day

2) The case in which Plaintiff A filed a complaint against Defendant A for occupational injury (Seoul District Public Prosecutor’s Office, 2018 Form No. 1544 of the Daegu District Public Prosecutor’s Office), which did not restrain the students (D) from having the students possess the substance of wood material and chemicaling, deeming that the student’s safe rubber strawing on the part of the promotion of the chemicalization of wood material is safe, and that the student stated to the effect that “it was not deemed that the suspect would not be deemed to pose any special danger after confirming that the safe rubber strawing was carried, and that the suspect would not be judged to be in danger” (No. 11 of the A), and that D also could have easily confirmed that the student and the student accompanying the J carried active string together with the student accompanying it.

3) In the first instance trial, C’s attorney also asserts that “D knew of the purchase of toy activation in the Overcheon Science Museum, and did not take any particular measure and did not leave it as it is,” (6 pages of the preparatory brief dated 1, 2017).

4) On July 14, 2017, one of the leading teachers of the instant camp was confirmed at around 12:00 a.m. around 12:0, to check the student’s life, and the student confirmed the form of the student’s personal life and was going to the school for the remaining teacher. However, the instant accident occurred where J, Plaintiff A, and E continued play-on while the student’s personal life was flicked, and all of the teachers did not confirm that the student’s personal life should be infringed upon.