[2] The case holding that the liability for damages of a kindergarten teacher who failed to prevent one-time indecent act against a kindergarten operator's kindergarten operator's young children is unlawful

[2] The case denying the liability for damages of kindergarten teachers who did not prevent one-time indecent act against the kindergarten operator's young children.

The court below acknowledged that the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant; hereinafter "the plaintiff") 1 was a female son of April 3, 1993 from March 16, 1998 to July 13, 1998, and he was in the only kindergarten operated by the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff; hereinafter "the defendant") 1, and the defendant Kim Jong-soo was in the slve of the slot foundation to which the plaintiff 1 belongs, and the plaintiff (the counter defendant; hereinafter "the plaintiff") 2 and 3 was the parent of the plaintiff 1. However, from March 16, 1998 to July 13, 1998, the court below recognized that the plaintiff 1 suffered from mental harm within the scope of the plaintiff 1's claim for damages due to his indecent act against the plaintiff 1 as his parent. The plaintiff 1 suffered from mental harm.

However, the court below rejected the plaintiffs 1's claim for damages against the defendant Kim Woo on the ground that the plaintiff 1 had an obligation to thoroughly protect and supervise the plaintiff 1's sexual indecent act during the course of the kindergarten. However, although the plaintiff 1 was the first student of the plaintiff 1's wall and the plaintiff 1 had an obligation to thoroughly protect and supervise the plaintiff 1 to prevent sexual indecent act, the court below rejected the defendant 1's obligation to protect the plaintiff 1's sexual indecent act on the ground that the plaintiff 1 did not fulfill the above obligation, since the defendant 1 was the direct operator of the above kindergarten and the plaintiff 1 was disadvantageous to the plaintiff 1 as a student in the kindergarten, it is not clear that it was impossible to predict and prevent the plaintiff 1 in advance from being indecent act in a single space within the kindergarten, and even if the plaintiff 3 requested the defendant 1 to pay attention not to do so in the future on April 198, it is hard to recognize that the defendant 1's indecent act was committed on the part of the defendant 13's sexual indecent act.

In addition, the court below reasoned that between July 14, 1998 and August 20, 198, Defendant 1 committed an indecent act against the plaintiffs 1 on the grounds that the plaintiff 3 had committed an indecent act against the plaintiffs 1 on the part of the plaintiff 1, the defendant Kim Young-si, the head of the defendant Kim Young-si, the head of the above kindergarten 1, the head of the above kindergarten 1, the early childhood education center of the competent educational Gu, etc., and that the defendant 1 committed an indecent act against the plaintiff 1 on the part of the plaintiff 1 on the ground that the plaintiff 3 violated or threatened the defendant 1's reputation, and that the defendant 1's act constitutes an indecent act against the plaintiffs, and that the defendant 1's act was not a strong indecent act against the defendant 1, and that the defendant 3's act was not an indecent act against the plaintiff 1, and that the defendant 1's act was not an unlawful act against the plaintiff 1's social norms, and that it was not an unlawful act against the plaintiff 1's wrong.

2. Judgment on the grounds of appeal

A. As to Defendant 1’s ground of appeal

Examining the evidence adopted by the court below, in particular, the statements made by the plaintiff 1's hospital and investigative agency in light of the records, it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant 1 committed an indecent act against the plaintiff 1 on one occasion by the method of delivery of the plaintiff 1's sexual organ. Accordingly, the court below acknowledged such facts and recognized the liability for damages against the plaintiffs by the defendant 1, and rejected the counterclaim claim against the plaintiffs by the defendant 1 against the plaintiff 1 is justified and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the facts.

B. Regarding the plaintiffs' grounds of appeal

Examining the evidence adopted by the court below, in particular, the fact that the plaintiff 1 was subject to investigation by the prosecutor, and the defendant 1 stated that he was not aware of his sexual indecent act twice or more, and that he was not aware of his memory, the court below's decision that the defendant 1 committed an indecent act against the plaintiff 1 is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law that misleads the plaintiff 1 about the facts against the rules of evidence.

In addition, a kindergarten or a school teacher is obligated to protect and supervise kindergarten children and students on behalf of a legal supervisor such as a person with parental authority. However, such duty to protect and supervise kindergarten children and students is limited to a living relationship closely related to the educational activities in a kindergarten and in a school, and even if they are living relationship within the scope of such duty, it is not possible for the court below to find the violation of the duty to protect and supervise the children and students to be responsible for the violation of the duty to protect and supervise the children and students only when the accident is anticipated or predictability to occur normally in school life in light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, and it is not possible for the court below to find the violation of the duty to protect and supervise the children and students in advance in light of the legal principles and records as alleged in the ground for appeal.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against each party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Song Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)