B. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable for 1,000,000 won for each of the plaintiffs 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, and 9

For each of them, 5% interest per annum from August 9, 2008 to January 22, 2009 and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

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

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, 1/3 of the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs, and the remainder are assessed against the defendants.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

A. Plaintiffs 1, 4, and 7 are attending the sixth year (title omitted of elementary school) in (title omitted). Plaintiffs 2, 3 are the parents of Plaintiffs 1-, 5, and 6, respectively, and Plaintiffs 4-, 8, and 9 are the parents of Plaintiffs 7, and Defendant 1 was working as teachers from March 2005 to (title omitted of elementary school) and Defendant 2 is the local government that establishes and operates (title omitted of elementary school).

B. From September 2006 to April 24, 2008, Defendant 1 committed an indecent act by force on 12 occasions in total between Plaintiff 1, 4, and 7, as shown in the separate crime record.

C. Defendant 1 was prosecuted due to the above criminal facts by violating the Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and Protection, etc. of Victims Thereof (Rape, etc. of Minors under the age of 13) in this court, and was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years on September 25, 2008. Accordingly, Defendant 1 and the prosecutor appealed each of Defendant 1 and the Prosecutor appealed from Gwangju High Court 2008No350, Dec. 4, 2008, but the above judgment became final and conclusive around that time, and all indecent acts in the attached crime were convicted.

[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1 to 4, Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 5-1 to 10, Eul evidence 2-1 to 16, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Existence of liability for damages

According to the above facts, Defendant 1 is a tort, and Defendant 2 is jointly and severally liable to compensate for the damages suffered by the Plaintiffs due to Defendant 1’s act of indecent act as an employer of Defendant 1.

B. Determination on Defendant 2’s assertion

As to this, Defendant 2’s local government asserts that Defendant 1’s above indecent act is not an act of performing duties as a teacher, and thus, Defendant 2’s local government is not responsible for the performance of duties as an employer. As such, if an employee’s unlawful act appears objectively to be related to the employer’s business activities, work performance, or performance of duties without considering the actor’s subjective circumstances, it shall be deemed that the employee’s unlawful act was committed with respect to the execution of duties. Whether it is objectively related to the performance of duties of the employer should be determined by considering not only the degree of the employee’s inherent duties and tort, but also the degree of the employer’s failure to take preventive measures against the occurrence of damages and the lack of the employer’s right to self-determination, in light of the fact that Defendant 1’s indecent act in this case was committed against the victim’s elementary school and local government’s instruction and supervision, but also the education duty of the State and local government to protect the students’ right to self-determination within the scope of education and instruction (see Supreme Court Decision 95Da39534, Feb. 10, 198).

Furthermore, Defendant 2’s local government asserts that Defendant 1 is not liable for damages because it has fulfilled its duty to supervise his affairs, such as conducting sexual harassment prevention education. As seen earlier, Defendant 2’s local government bears the duty to protect the dignity of students in the course of school education and commits indecent act against the students in the elementary school curriculum, and Defendant 2’s local government with the authority to guide, supervise and supervise the school and teachers through in-depth personality tests or interviews with the teachers on a regular basis, and confirms in advance that there is no teacher who may cause problems such as sexual harassment against the students, etc., and that there is a possibility that the expert is likely to do so. As such, Defendant 2’s local government has the duty to operate an effective system or program to prevent sexual harassment against the students in advance by implementing special training programs including personal counseling for at least 40 hours and continuously observing them. As so, Defendant 2’s local government asserted, Defendant 2’s local government shall not be deemed to have opened a formal lecture by inviting more than 1-2 hours per year.

Therefore, Defendant 2’s above assertion cannot be accepted in entirety.

3. Scope of liability for damages

(a) Medical expenses;

In order to treat the psychological impulses suffered from Defendant 1’s above indecent act, Plaintiff 1 paid KRW 17,443, Plaintiff 4, and Plaintiff 7 paid KRW 201,355, respectively, to the innnam Hospital; Plaintiff 4 received mental therapy at the innnam Hospital; Plaintiff 7 received the said treatment; Plaintiff 1 received the said treatment; Plaintiff 1 received the said treatment; Plaintiff 259,323; and Plaintiff 7 paid KRW 201,355.

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence No. 6-1, 2, Evidence No. 7-1 to 4, and Evidence No. 8-1 to 4

(b) consolation money;

The above facts and evidence Nos. 3-1 through 3, 4-1 through 3, 9-1, 2, 10-1, 11-2, 12-1 through 4, and 12-1 through 4 of the evidence Nos. 12-1, and the Non-Party’s testimony as a whole; under the following circumstances, Defendant 1, an elementary school teacher, 11-2, 00 young children under 10 years of age, for a long period of 2 years, are 0 years of age and 7 years of age; Defendant 1’s indecent act against the non-party 10, 70 years of age and 7 years of age and 10; Defendant 1, 40 years of age and 7 years of age and 0; Defendant 1, 40 years of age and 7 years of mental or physical development;

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, Defendant 1 is jointly and severally liable with Plaintiff 1 to pay KRW 17,017,443 (the treatment cost of KRW 17,443 + consolation money of KRW 17,00,00), KRW 17,259,323 to Plaintiff 4 (i.e., treatment cost of KRW 259,323 + consolation money of KRW 17,00,000 + KRW 17,200), KRW 17,201,355 (i.e., medical cost of KRW 201,355 + consolation money of KRW 17,00,000 + KRW 17,000), and Defendant 2 is jointly and severally liable with Defendant 1 to pay the Plaintiffs 1,4,00,000 among the above damages amount of KRW 12,3,56,89,90 each of the above damages amounting to KRW 17,000,000 each of the damages for delay from 208.28 days following each of this case.

4. Conclusion

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

[Attachment] Details of crime: (Omission)

Judges Cho Jae-sung (Presiding Judge)