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

3. 3/5 of the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs, and the remainder is assessed against the defendant.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

A. On June 7, 2010, Plaintiff 1 was a student who was enrolled in the second grade of ○ Elementary School located in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul (hereinafter “instant school”) (hereinafter “instant school”), Plaintiff 2 and 3 were the parents of Plaintiff 1, and Plaintiff 4 was the remaining students of Plaintiff 1. The Defendant, as a local government, established and operated the instant school.

B. Nonparty 1, at his own residence located in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter referred to as Yeongdeungpo-gu 2 omitted) between A.M. and night on June 6, 2010, suffered a strong impulse to resolve sexual desire by looking at more than 50 obscene video images for female juveniles who were downloaded on the Internet site at around that time, and by using dynamic sexual behavior against female women.

At around 05:30 on June 7, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as “the day of the instant case”), Nonparty 1 went to the Young-gu Human Resources Market in neighboring areas in order to find jobs using slock slocks with slocks. Nonparty 1 did not find a day-to-day in the said human resources market, and Nonparty 1 dynafed with slocks located in neighboring areas, and dynafs and dynafs and dynafs together with the country of the instant case. At around 07:30, Nonparty 1 dynafs and dynafs together with the country of the sea.

The non-party 1 opened from the above potato house, and 09:01, the non-party 1 saw elementary school students to sexual assault, and entered the school playground through the school sentiments of this case.

C. On the day of the instant case, there was no official class as a voluntary school day, and there was only three out-of-school classes (10:10 to 11:00) for 93 students due to after-school learning, there was little number of students in the instant school playgrounds. In addition, the instant school did not place security guards for reasons of lack of budget, etc. (not only the instant school but also most of the schools operated by the Defendant do not place security guards on the grounds of policy, such as lack of budget and school park project (b). However, the school guardian system was implemented only from March 2, 2010. However, on the day of the instant case, the day of the instant school was autonomous school day, and thus, the school guardian did not work.

D. Nonparty 1 found 30 minutes of a school, such as smoking tobacco, etc., to have diced at the school site of this case. Nonparty 1 1 saw 1 female students under the name of this school, and she saw her horse, but she did not go to her. Nonparty 1 left the school site according to the direction of her flight. At that time, Nonparty 1 she was opened only after her second door, and she tried to go back to the second floor through the stairs outside the school. Nonparty 2 stopped her out of the school without Nonparty 1’s answer to Nonparty 1 by Nonparty 2, she was Nonparty 1’s answer to Nonparty 2. Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 1’s answer to Nonparty 2. Nonparty 1’s answer to Nonparty 1’s second floor without Nonparty 1’s direction. Nonparty 2 stopped. Nonparty 2, at the time, she tried to stop from the school site of this case. Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2’s answer to Nonparty 1’s order.

E. Plaintiff 3 moved to the school of Plaintiff 1, his father, his father, and it was difficult to move to the school of Plaintiff 1. On the day of the instant case, around 09:55, in order to take the Plaintiff 1, who tried to attend the after-school curriculum of Plaintiff 1, who is his father, and going to the school playground through the post-school of this case at a distance of 5 meters from the house, and 20 meters away from the house, and came to go to the center of the next school, and came to go to go to the center of the center of the next school. Plaintiff 1 came to go to go to the road of the middle school building and the library (the fourth floor of the main building) to go to go to the school, and Plaintiff 3 went to go to the direction of the after-school curriculum of Plaintiff 1, and then came to go to the market outside of the instant school through the door of this case.

F. Nonparty 1, as described in the above sub-paragraph (d), went out of the main building of Nonparty 2, and was considered to have 1. Nonparty 1. Nonparty 1 stated that “A police officer is a police officer, and he has found a baby. He has tried to find it.” Nonparty 1, who is believed to do so, induced Plaintiff 1 to be bencing in the above school playground. Nonparty 1, who was in his possession after the knife the knife of the knife of the knife, flife, flife, flife, flife, and d.” Nonparty 1’s knife the knife of Plaintiff 1’s right part of Plaintiff 1’s drinking with his own hand, and caused Nonparty 1 to go out of the school of this case (hereinafter “Plaintiff 1’s residence”). Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 1 got out of the school of this case’s case’s residence.”

[Reasons for Recognition] In the absence of dispute, each statement of evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 20, 22, 8 and 12, 1, 2, 3, 3, 4, 5, 5, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 20, 22, 8, and 12

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Grounds for liability

(1) 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 on behalf of a legal supervisor, such as a person with parental authority, pursuant to the Education Act, if it is anticipated that a student is likely to suffer an accident due to neglecting his/her duty to protect and supervise students in educational activities and in an inseparably indivisible relationship, then he/she shall be held responsible for teachers, etc., and the predictability thereof shall be determined in consideration of the time and place of educational activities, the student’s age, social experience, judgment ability, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da24318, Apr. 26, 2007, etc.). In such cases, the scope of the living relationship and possibility of the occurrence of an accident shall be recognized more broadly (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da4377, Jan. 17, 2008).

(2) As to the instant case, it is reasonable to view that Plaintiff 1’s school principal or duty teacher at the time of the instant accident constituted a school principal’s duty of care to expect that it might be exposed to crimes such as kidnapping and attracting students during the course of the instant accident, and to prevent the Plaintiff 1’s violation of the duty of care as an employee of the instant school, such as the Plaintiff’s exposure to the school, etc. at the time of the instant accident and the Plaintiff 1’s failure to take necessary measures to protect the Plaintiff 1’s school’s human resources, such as the Plaintiff 1’s school principal or duty teacher at the time of the instant accident, as the school principal or duty teacher at the time of the instant accident is merely a low school student who is merely a student under the age of 7 and 10 months, and thus, the Defendant did not have any duty of care to prevent the Plaintiff 1 from being exposed to the school principal or duty teacher at the time of the instant accident. However, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff 1’s school principal or duty teacher at the time of the instant accident.

B. Judgment on the defendant's argument

(1) Contents of the assertion

(A) It was impossible to find out any fact that Nonparty 1 was under the influence of alcohol in the speech and movement, etc. of Nonparty 1, and Nonparty 1 thought that Nonparty 1 was a faculty type, and did not seem to have any circumstance to suspect that Nonparty 1 was under the influence of alcohol in the school for the purpose of crime. Therefore, Nonparty 2, the teacher on duty, did not have a possibility of predicting the occurrence of the instant accident, and was not negligent.

(B) Article 11 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act provides that “All citizens may use school facilities, etc. as prescribed by the Educational Rules of the relevant City/Do in cases of national schools to the extent that it does not interfere with school education, and in cases of public and private schools, as prescribed by the Educational Rules of the relevant City/Do.” Article 8(1) of the Installation and Utilization of Sports Facilities Act provides that “sports facilities shall be open so that local residents may use sports facilities to the extent that it does not interfere with the holding of sports events or the maintenance and management of facilities.” Article 2(1) of the Regulations on Opening and Use of School Facilities at each level below high school provides that “The head of a school under each subparagraph of Article 2 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act shall open the playgrounds and school facilities so that residents may use school facilities to the extent that it does not interfere with school education.” Accordingly, it is difficult to recognize that a school has access to school facilities for the purpose of crime.

(C) The absence of a guard room at an elementary school is based on policy reasons, such as school park construction projects (construction of fences) following the welfare of neighboring residents and the opening of schools, and does not necessarily require an elementary school to have a guard room. Moreover, a lot of budget should be supported to ensure the safety of students. As such, it is practically impossible to secure all facilities and personnel necessary to ensure the safety of students, and the best efforts should be made under given circumstances. Accordingly, the mere fact that a guard room among multiple safety devices was not installed cannot be said to have failed to perform the duty of protection and supervision.

(D) The Defendant operates a learning guard system for the safety of students. However, due to the lack of budget, the number of students and working hours are insufficient, and working hours are only 180 days which fall short of 205 days, the total number of school days. Accordingly, the learning guardian is not working on Saturdays and autonomous holidays, and such result is not attributable to the Defendant.

(2) Determination

First of all, as to the assertion of the above (A), it can be recognized that Nonparty 1 reported to Nonparty 1, at the time of the instant accident, as follows: (a) 2 soldiers and beer 1 disease a week from 07:30 days before the date of the clerical error in the instant school; (b) Nonparty 1 reported to susper by suffering from susperch flusium in the color strings; and (c) Nonparty 2 did not seem to have been negligent at the time of the instant accident, in light of the fact that Nonparty 1 was unable to expect Nonparty 1’s child to visit the instant school, such as the fact that Nonparty 1’s child was flusium, as above, and Nonparty 2 did not seem to have been negligent at the time of Nonparty 1’s accident, on the ground that Nonparty 1’s child was flussium and flusium. Therefore, Nonparty 1’s child could not be considered to have been a student’s flusium at the time of the instant case.

Next, as to the argument of the above (b), (c), and (d), the obligation to open school playgrounds is recognized by the Health Team, Sports Facilities Act, etc., and the obligation of the school to protect and supervise students from outside persons with the purpose of crime, etc. cannot be deemed as mitigated or mitigated. Rather, as a school, more efforts should be made to protect the safety of students from outside persons. Furthermore, in the case of this case, even though there are a large number of students who attend the computer class classes after school, the number of students who attend the class after school was not assigned in the school, and in order to find the object of crime on the basis of the school, it is reasonable to view that Nonparty 1 neglected the obligation to protect and supervise students, even though one hour has been increased in the playground to find out the object of crime, it is not reasonable to deem that the school as a side of the school neglected the obligation to protect and supervise the students. Furthermore, it is not reasonable to deem that the above obligation of the defendant's violation of duty is justified.

C. Limitation on liability

However, in light of the fact that the instant accident occurred in the absence of most teachers to work as autonomous holidays, between the shorter net time between Plaintiff 1 and Plaintiff 3, her mother, and entering the main building, and it appears that it would not have been easy for the school to withdraw response measures as a side of the school, and that the instant accident occurred due to Nonparty 1’s sudden and sudden behavior, and that the damages therefrom considerably deviate from the scope of damage due to ordinary accidents in the school, it is reasonable to limit the Defendant’s responsibility to 70% in terms of fair and reasonable allocation of damages.

3. Scope of damages.

(a)For the convenience of calculation, in principle, the period shall be calculated on a monthly basis, but less than a month shall be counted on the side on which the appraised value is less than a month, and less than a won and less than a last month shall be discarded, and at the time of the accident of the amount of damages, the present price shall be calculated by deducting the interim interest calculated at the rate of 5/12 per month;

(b) Daily income;

(1) The plaintiffs' assertion

Plaintiff 1’s rate of loss of labor capacity in the psychiatrist due to the instant accident is 21% at present, and 16% after the completion of treatment (in the case of a father and a region, it is difficult to make a judgment in the present state, and it is possible to make a judgment after the second sex). Plaintiff 1 is a woman born on July 26, 2002, and the urban daily wage at the time of the instant accident was KRW 689,658, and Plaintiff 1 was KRW 689,658, the daily wage at the time of the instant accident was 689,658, and thus, Plaintiff 1’s actual income for 492-month from July 25, 2062, which was the end of the operation period from July 26, 2021 to July 25, 2062, the actual income for 492-month is 48,74,989 won (=689,6588 won x 222 days x 】 16%8) 】 201.328

(2) Determination

According to the result of the court's physical appraisal commission for the head of Gangnam-gu Synish Hospital, Plaintiff 1 needs to perform mental medication and support mental therapy for about two years in the future, and it appears that Plaintiff 1 might be subject to post-treatment, such as depression, apprehensions, and degradation of concentration for three years after the completion of the above treatment. The degree of the disability is equivalent to 16% of the two parts of the list of evaluation of loss of Mabro labor ability, brain, and Mabro labor ability, and the above physical disability caused by post-treatment is not permanent disability, but is expected to be improved within three years after the completion of treatment for the next two years.

However, as of July 26, 2021, which was the starting date of the Plaintiff 1’s operation period, the lapse of five years (=two years of treatment period + three years of testamentary gift + three years of treatment period) from the closing date of the argument in this case, is apparent from the calendar, the Plaintiff 1’s claim for lost income is without merit without further examining the remainder.

(c) Future treatment costs;

According to the result of the court's entrustment of physical appraisal to the director of the Gangnamn Synam Hospital, the plaintiff 1 needs to perform mental medication and support mental treatment for the next two years, and detailed details are as follows.

Medical treatment costs in the main sentence - Mental treatment, work, rehabilitation, etc.: 20,00 won x 52 times (time per week) x 2 = 50,000 won x 52 times (time per week) x 1 = 2,600,000 won x 7,000 won x 365 days x 2 = 5,110,000 won x 365 days x 10,000 won x 100,000 won x 3 times: 250,000 won x 250,000 won x 50,000 won x 250,000 won x 50,000 won x 10,590,000 won.

However, there is no assertion or proof as to the fact that the above medical expenses have been spent by the closing date of the argument, and thus, on August 29, 2013, which was two years from August 29, 201, the date of appraisal for the convenience of the calculation, the amount of KRW 10,590,000 for the future medical expenses was paid in a lump sum on August 29, 201, and the said amount was converted to the present price at the time of the instant accident, the amount of KRW 9,142,346 (i.e., KRW 10,590,000 x 0.86333).

D. Limitation on liability

(1) The defendant's liability ratio: 70%

(2) Calculation: 6,399,642 won (i.e., medical expenses in the future 9,142,347 x Defendant’s ratio of liability)

(e) consolation money;

In addition, in consideration of the fact that Plaintiff 1 suffered a big damage that he could not cope with the young age, the school where Plaintiff 1 was kidnapped is the place where Plaintiff 1 should be safely protected, the fact that Plaintiff 2 and 3, the parent of Plaintiff 1, performed their duty to protect himself, and that Plaintiff 1, the parent of Plaintiff 1, committed the instant accident due to the negligence on the part of the school, although he performed his duty to protect himself, he was in the school for about 2 years, and there is a need for mental treatment and support mental treatment for Plaintiff 1 for the next 3 years, and it is anticipated that the performance of his personal relationship and academic performance will not be limited for 3 years, due to depression, anxiety, and a fall in concentration, etc. In addition, the fact that Plaintiff 1 might be additionally suffering from the subsequent disability, and the fact that there is a considerable degree to know about it, it is reasonable to determine 50 million won to Plaintiff 1, 100,000 won, 100 won, 300 won, 1000 won and 150.

F. Sub-committee

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to Plaintiff 1 the amount of KRW 56,39,642 (=6,39,642 for future medical treatment costs + KRW 50,000 for consolation money + KRW 50,000 for each of the plaintiffs 2, and 3,000 for the plaintiffs 4, and damages for delay calculated at each of the rates of KRW 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, which is the date on which the instant accident occurred, from June 7, 2010 to August 30, 2012, which is deemed reasonable to dispute the existence or scope of the Defendant’s obligation to perform the instant case from June 7, 201 to August 30, 201, and the damages for delay calculated at 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims of this case are accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as they are without merit.

Judges Kim Sung-dae (Presiding Judge)

1) In the case of the instant school based on Article 24(3) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and Articles 45 and 47 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the school of this case designated June 7, 2010 as autonomous holidays after deliberation by the school operating committee.

2) The system is that retired teachers, retired police officers, etc. are appointed as guardians of learning to perform duties such as vulnerable hours, out-of-the-spot tour guidance, guidance, school guidance, prevention and eradication of school violence. Working hours are determined through consultation with schools within 180 days per day based on eight hours per day, and on holidays, a teacher on duty plays a role as a guardian of learning instead of working on holidays.