2. Plaintiff 2

3. Plaintiff 3

[Judgment of the court below]

Attorney Kim Tae-hoon

Legal representative, superintendent of education, and others

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 and 3 others

2. Defendant 2;

Last Address, Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 446 - 11 (Maur-dong)

2. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City are all dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the plaintiffs and the defendant 2 shall be borne by the defendant 2, and the part arising between the plaintiffs and the defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City shall

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

As to the money of KRW 10,00,000 and each of the above money to Plaintiff 3, the year from January 4, 2012 to the delivery date of the complaint shall be applicable.

5% and 20% interest per annum from the following day to the date of full payment shall be paid.

A. Indication of Claim: The damage claim acquired by the non-party 2 against the defendant 2, who is the supervisor of the non-party 2, in relation to the act indicated in the attachment list by the non-party 1 to the plaintiff 1, and the plaintiff 2 and his parents.

(b) Grounds for recognition: Judgment by public notice (Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act);

2. Determination as to the claim against the defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City

A. Basic facts (1) The occurrence of a harmful act (A) came into existence on March 201, 201 with the non-party 1, the non-party 2, the non-party 3, the non-party 4, the non-party 5, etc. (hereinafter referred to as "a student") who is the equal student of the same school, who was admitted to the Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Jung-gu District School. They first sent them after school hours, but the non-party 1 began to have changed the non-party 1 into the power relation, such as misunderstanding of the breath of the breath of the breath of the breath of the breath of the breath of the breath of the 2011. The 2nd of the bnd of the 1st of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 1st of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 1st of the 2nd of the 3th of the 1st of the 1st of the 2nd of the 3th of the 2.

In 2011, Plaintiff 1 and Plaintiff 2 and Plaintiff 3, the parents of Plaintiff 1, caused multiple problems in the school, and received several interviews, such as listening to and receiving counseling on several occasions. The details of counseling with which Plaintiff 1 and Plaintiff 1 met, are as shown in the attached Table of Counseling.

(B) On June 201, Nonparty 1, Nonparty 2, and Nonparty 5, among the matters related to family students, assaulted a sudden rain in a toilet in A middle school teachers and received seven-day special education. Meanwhile, Nonparty 5 was subject to two disciplinary action due to school attendance, school violence, etc.

(3) Measures by the school side

(A) Preliminary preventive measures

In order to prevent school violence in advance in 2011, A middle school took measures such as ① school violence prevention education for students, ② school violence prevention training for school personnel, ③ school violence prevention surveys, ④ patrol and surveillance activities, ⑤ camping implementation, etc.

(B) On December 23, 201, the sports teacher of the instant harmful act discovered that the Plaintiff 1 was faced with face and asked for the reasons therefor. However, the Plaintiff 1 asked that he was in front of the toilet.

In light of the above facts, the Plaintiff 1’s standing group confirmed, through CCTV, that the Plaintiff 1 did not have access to the toilet in question, and confirmed that the Plaintiff 1 had no access to the toilet once again, but the Plaintiff 1 responded that the Plaintiff 1 had no access to the toilet in question. On December 16, 2011, the Plaintiff 1 had been faced with the Plaintiff 1’s face. On December 16, 201, the Plaintiff 1, which was believed to have been related to the Plaintiff 1 (the Plaintiff 1 responded to the Plaintiff 1’s standing teacher who asked for the reason that the bicycle was sent to the Plaintiff’s standing teacher, who was in the third grade of A middle school, and the Plaintiff 1’s parents, were in the same manner as the Plaintiff 1’s standing teacher was in the middle school of C and the Defendant 1 was in the middle school of C and the Defendant 1’s parents. After returning home, the Plaintiff 1 had been aware of the instant harmful act.

(B) Follow-up measures

After becoming aware of the existence of the instant harmful act, Plaintiff 1’s teacher consulted Plaintiff 1 and his parents with Plaintiff 2 and Plaintiff 3, who consulted with the said students, and confirmed whether there was any other damage. On the other hand, Plaintiff 1 gave lessons to students and submitted rebuttals.

On the other hand, the principal of A secondary school held the Autonomous Committee on Countermeasures against School Violence and took disciplinary measures such as recommendation, transfer, etc. against A student (non-party 1, non-party 2, and non-party 3: 5 days of recommendation, transfer, and prohibition of access to the Non-party 4; 5 days of special education, publication, and written apology, and prohibition of access to the non-party 5 and non-party 6; 40 hours of social service, publication, written apology, and access).

[Ground of recognition] The absence of dispute, Gap 1, 2, 4, 9 through 20, Eul 1 through 16 (including numbers if there are numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), and Eul 1 to Eul 16, the results of fact-finding on Eul 2, the overall purport of the arguments. The plaintiff's assertion (1) is that the plaintiff 1 suffered physical and mental damage by continuously being affected by harassment and assault from A middle school's East students, and the plaintiff 2 and the plaintiff 3 suffered mental damage.

(2) The plaintiffs' damage occurred due to the violation of the duty to protect and supervise teachers, including the principal of middle school or the teacher of a public official belonging to the defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City, who failed to prevent the student's act due to negligence. Thus, the defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City is liable to compensate for the damages suffered by the plaintiffs.

C. Determination

(1) Criteria for determining the responsibility of principals or teachers in relation to school violence

The principal of a school or teacher's duty to protect and supervise students under the Education Act on behalf of the legal supervisor such as the person with parental authority, and it does not affect all the students' living relationship in the school, but is limited to educational activities in the school and living relationship closely related thereto. Even if the accident is a living relationship within the scope of such duty, the principal or teacher shall be liable for the violation of the duty to protect and supervise the school life only if the accident is predicted or predictability (the specific risk of the accident). In addition, it is necessary to determine the possibility of a violation of the duty to avoid negligence on the premise that it is not possible to recognize the possibility of a violation of the duty to avoid negligence.

In particular, in the case of school violence committed as part of the collective bullying (Supreme Court Decision 2005Da16034 Decided November 15, 2007), more active and ex-post measures are necessary, unlike the case of accidents caused by fighting or assault between sudden students, so that the harmful act can form a fair and democratic human relationship, and establish a peaceful conflict resolution system so that the influence of the student is not exclusive to the minority, it is necessary to establish a communication structure based on respect, consideration and sense, education on relevant laws, etc. And preventive measures should be taken to prevent the recurrence of school violence such as ensuring the stability of students and the prevention of harm after the occurrence of violence from the disaster.

However, even if all these measures are taken, it cannot be concluded that the school violence does not completely avoid the occurrence of school violence, and if all these measures are not taken, it cannot be concluded that the school violence does not perform its duty of avoidance. The school violence is caused by the combination of personal, family environmental, school environmental, social and environmental factors, and thus it cannot be completely prevented from completely preventing them, and the removal of environmental factors in the school cannot be prevented from completely preventing them, even though it has positive aspects that the degree of caution can be strengthened when demanding a higher duty of care related to prevention in advance, it may be insufficient to protect the damaged students by encouraging passive and defensive attitude in relation to post-measures, but in the case of compulsory education, it may be impossible to select or refuse the trainee, and most of all, it is difficult to draw the responsibility and active educational activities of the school teacher in the education of the school, which may be contrary to the ideology of securing the autonomy and creative education, etc. of educational activities.

Therefore, it should be limited to cases where the principal of a school or a teacher's violation of the duty of care is recognized in relation to school violence, if he/she does not take measures ordinarily used or known for the general prevention of school violence at all or if he/she takes measures only to clearly insufficient measures (violation of the abstract duty of care) or if it is predicted or possible to do so, if he/she does not take considerable measures to take as principal of a school or teacher in accordance with specific circumstances to prevent the occurrence of school violence (violation of the specific duty of care). (2) The considerable portion of the harmful act in this case's case's responsibility for Defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City was committed within A middle school teachers, and thus, the harmful act in this case is considered to have been committed in relation to the educational activities in the school and the living relationship closely related thereto. Accordingly, it is

I would like to examine whether there was a violation of the duty of care to teachers, including the principal of A Middle School and the teacher at the school when the plaintiff 1 was attending.

First, we examine whether the principal of A middle school or teachers violated the abstract duty of care. As shown in the above facts, it is not sufficient to recognize that the principal of A middle school or teachers have taken all measures that are ordinarily used or insufficient to prevent school violence on the sole basis of the images of Gap middle school or of Gap evidence Nos. 2, 5, 9 through 20, and the images of Gap evidence Nos. 3 and 8 are sufficient to recognize that Gap middle school did not take all measures ordinarily known or insufficient to prevent school violence, and there is no evidence otherwise.

Next, it is examined whether the principal of the A Middle School or teachers violated the specific duty of care. The fact that the Plaintiff 1’s teacher was aware of the damages caused by the Plaintiff 1 and the perpetrator and assaulting other students is as seen earlier.

However, considering the fact that school violence or delinquency may cause school violence, even if Plaintiff 1 expressed the friendship with Plaintiff 1 and concealed it even if it was damaged from the aggressor student, through home communication letter sent by Plaintiff 1, etc., it is no longer possible to predict the possibility of Plaintiff 1’s school violence or consultation with Plaintiff 1, the parents of Plaintiff 1, and Plaintiff 2 and Plaintiff 3, the Plaintiff 1, the parents of Plaintiff 1, were unable to predict the possibility of this case’s harmful act, because Plaintiff 1 and Plaintiff 1 knew that Plaintiff 1 and Plaintiff 1 knew of the fact that the active detection activity of Plaintiff 1 had been committed, and that Plaintiff 1 and Plaintiff 3 knew of the fact that Plaintiff 1 had caused the problem.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City on the premise that the principal of A middle school or teachers, including teachers, have violated the duty of care, is without merit without any need to further examine the amount of damages, etc.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiffs' claim against the defendant 2 is justified, and the claim against the defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.