204 Baz. 151180 Damages (ar)

1. ○○○;

2. ○○.

3. Stambed ○.

4. The grandchildren △△△; and

Plaintiff 4. Inasmuch as it is a minor, the legal representative ○○○, the mother ○○○.

Law Firm 0000 Office, Attorney 000

1. ○ Metropolitan City;

Representative ○○○○

2. Stambed ○.

[Defendant-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 2 others

3. ○○.

September 27, 2006

November 22, 2006

1. Defendant ○○ Metropolitan City pays 35,520,746 won to Plaintiff ○○○○, and 34,850,591 won to Plaintiff ○○○○, and 50,000 won per annum from July 4, 2004 to November 22, 2006, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. The plaintiffs' remaining claims against the defendant 00 Metropolitan City and their respective claims against defendant 20 and O are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the portion arising between the plaintiffs and the defendant ○○ Metropolitan City is about 10%, and one of them is borne by the plaintiffs, and the remainder is borne by the above defendant, respectively, and the part arising between the plaintiffs and the defendant 1 and the defendant 2 and the Lee ○

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The Defendants jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff ○○○, O○○, each of the KRW 40,00,000, Plaintiff 1,000, and each of the KRW 1,000,000 to △△△△△, respectively, for each of the KRW 5% per annum from July 4, 2004 to the delivery date of a duplicate of the instant complaint, and for each of the said KRW 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or are admitted in full view of the overall purport of the arguments as a result of the on-site inspection by this court, and there is no counter-proof, contrary to the following facts: Gap 1, 2, 3, 8, and Eul 1 through 5 (including each number).

A. On July 3, 2004, while he was in the fourth and fourth grade of the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, established and operated by Defendant ○○ Metropolitan City (hereinafter “the deceased”). A student who died after falling under the lower parking lot on the fourth floor of the hallway at the ○○○○ Elementary School on July 3, 2004. The Plaintiff ○○○○, and ○○○○○○, and the Plaintiff ○○○ was the parent of the deceased, the Plaintiff ○○○, the Plaintiff △△△△△△, the Plaintiff △△△△△, and at the time, the Defendant ○○○ was the leader of the deceased, and the Defendant ○○○○ was the principal of the ○○ Elementary School.

B. At around 08:0 on July 3, 2004, the Deceased was replaced by a health teacher at around 08:0, and his mother was found to have been 7,8 students suffering from the school playgrounds in order to get out of the school site under the direction of the Defendant Park Jong-○. At the same time, the mother was found to have come out of the school site at around 08:30 on the same day, and the mother was found to have come out of the school site at around 0:0 the day on which he was unable to get out of the school. At the same time, the mother was found to have come out of the school site at around 0: the mother was 4,00, and the mother was found to have come out of the school site at around 0: 0, the mother was found to have come out of the school site at around 00, and the mother was found to have come out of the school site at around 00, and the mother was found to have come out of the school site at around 00.

E. It is not clear that the deceased’s fall down with the process of crashing. In other words, it is difficult to find out that the deceased’s self-satisfies into the wind that the safety rods down on the fourth floor back to the wind that the safety rods back to the end of the body with the intention of hiding the body, by making sure that the mother of sexual 00 died voluntarily, or without the intention of suicide (e.g., whether the mother of sexual 00 died), and that it fell down with the wind that the safety rods back to the wind that the safety rods down to the end of the body.

2. Whether liability for damages arises;

A. The principal of Defendant 00 Metropolitan City schools or teachers are obligated to protect and supervise students. However, under the Education Act, the duty to protect and supervise students on behalf of the legal supervisor, such as a person with parental authority, is recognized for students who are engaged in educational activities in a school or are in a living relationship closely related to such activities, and the responsibility of teachers, etc. is recognized only to the extent that such accidents may normally occur even if the students were involved in an accident due to neglecting the duty to protect and supervise the students. Such predictability should be determined in light of the student’s age, social experience, judgment ability, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 96Da19833, Aug. 23, 1996).

According to the above facts, as the principal of this case, Defendant Lee ○○ or Defendant Park ○, who is a school teacher, was negligent in failing to stop cleaning the deceased, by monitoring and supervising the students so that the students do not suffer from the distress in their cleaning service activities inside and outside the school, and neglecting cleaning the deceased’s head to prevent the accident. If he analyzed the psychological state of the deceased after the above accident, he can be sufficiently anticipated that the deceased’s failure to perform his duty of care and supervision to prevent the occurrence of the accident at all within the scope of the deceased’s health or supervision by failing to properly respond to the accident (this psychological condition of the deceased can also be sufficiently observed in the health room where the deceased was out of the health room, and thus, the deceased’s duty of care and supervision cannot be seen as being in an unstable state of the deceased’s health or supervision within the scope of the deceased’s health or supervision.

In addition, in this case where it cannot be readily determined that the deceased committed suicide, the safety sealing of every month is not fixed, and the safety sealing of the above school, which is a public structure, is installed to return to as if the deceased was sleep, shall not be considered to have safety in accordance with the ordinary purpose. Thus, the safety sealing of the above school, which is a public structure, shall not be deemed to have safety in accordance with the ordinary purpose. The construction and management of the above school building, as in the case of the defendant ○ Metropolitan City, which is the construction and management manager of the above school building, has a duty to install the safety sealing of the place where the deceased fell so that it does not return to the safety sealing

Therefore, under Article 2(1) of the State Compensation Act, Defendant ○○ Metropolitan City is liable to compensate all damages suffered by the deceased and the plaintiffs due to the instant accident that occurred due to the negligence in the performance of official duties by Defendant Park ○, and Lee ○○, who is a public official under its jurisdiction, or due to the defect in the construction and management of public structures pursuant to Article 5(1) of the

B. Although Defendant Park OO, Lee 00 Plaintiffs had had thoroughly supervised and supervised Defendant Park ○ and principal of the school, Defendant Park ○ and principal of the school, so as not to cause any safety accident to students, Defendant Park ○ and Lee ○○ were negligent in doing so, and Defendant Park ○ and Lee ○ sought compensation for the deceased’s and the plaintiffs’ damages.

In addition, if a public official causes damage to another person due to an illegal act in the course of his/her duties, a public official is liable for damages only when the illegal act was committed intentionally or by gross negligence, and only the State or a local government is liable for damages if the progress is merely a progress room (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 95Da38677, Feb. 15, 1996). Since there is no evidence to prove that the above Defendants are gross negligence, the plaintiffs' claim against the above Defendants is without merit.

C. Limitation on liability

However, according to the above facts, the deceased was the fourth-year student of the elementary school at the time of the accident in this case, and even though he was unable to take a special measure for the accident in which he was sexually sexually sexually sexually sexually sexually sexually sexually sexually sexually sexually sexually sexually sexually by the deceased's loss, he did not have his health room as a class of the deceased on the second floor without any speech, and he did fall on the fourth floor or the fourth floor, and such negligence of the deceased was also caused by the accident in this case. Thus, it is reasonable to consider it in determining the scope of damages to be compensated by the defendant ○○ Metropolitan City (the claim for exemption from the defendant ○○ Metropolitan City is not accepted) and it is reasonable to consider it as 70% in light of the above facts. Thus, the ratio of liability to the defendant ○○ Metropolitan City is limited to 30% other than the above ratio of negligence.

3. Scope of damages.

(a) The deceased’s lost income;

The lost income equivalent to the operating capacity lost by the Deceased due to the instant accident is KRW 139,03,940, calculated at the present price at the time of the instant accident, according to the method of cutting off interest at the rate of 5/12 per month based on the facts of recognition and assessment as follows:

(1) Facts of recognition and evaluation

(a) Gender: Male and date of birth; May 5, 1994; age: 10 years old at the time of the accident; 60.46 years old;

(b)financial assessment of the occupation and operating capacity;

In the absence of the instant accident, the Deceased was 22 days every month engaged in urban daily work. On or around December 2004, the urban daily wage of adult male sought by the Plaintiffs is KRW 52,374, so it is evaluated that the Deceased may have earned income of KRW 1,152,228 (won 52,374 x 22 days each month (the Plaintiff asserted that the Deceased may have been engaged in daily work by 25 days each month, but the number of working days of urban daily workers according to the empirical rule is 22 days each month).

(C) Maximum working age: From May 5, 2017 to May 4, 2054, when the deceased becomes an adult and completed military service, 444 months of age from May 5, 2017, when he/she substituted for the deceased.

(d) Cost of living: 1/3 of income;

[Evidence] Clear fact, non-contentious fact, rule of experience, entry of Gap 1, 5, and 6 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

(2)Calculation (if less than Won).

1,152,228 won x 2/3 x 180.9589 (29.7345-118.756) = 139,003,940 won. Funeral expenses and treatment expenses of the deceased: The Plaintiff ○○○○○ incurred KRW 2,233,850 (3) 2,23,850 (3) 4). The limitation of liability is limited.

(1) Liability ratio of Defendant ○○ Metropolitan City: 30%

(2) Calculation

(A) Property damage of the deceased: 41,701,182 won (139,03,940 won in lost income x 30%) (b) the property damage of the Plaintiff ○○○: 670,155 won (Funeral expenses 2,233,850 x 30%).

(1) Reasons for taking into account: The details and result of the instant accident, the deceased’s fault ratio, the plaintiffs’ family relationship, and other various circumstances revealed in the instant argument.

(2) The amount determined;

(a) Deceased: 20 million won;

(B) Plaintiff ○○, ○○: 4 million won each, respectively.

(C) Plaintiff 1, 200, 200,000 won for each of the following reasons:

(e) Inheritance relationship;

(1) The deceased’s heir and the shares of inheritance: The plaintiff’s grandchildren, the plaintiff’s ○○, and the plaintiff’s ○○ shall inherit one half each.

(b) Amount of inheritance: 61,701,182 won (the deceased’s property damage 41,701,182 won + the deceased’s consolation money 20 million won);

(c) Inheritance amount: 30,850,591 won (61,701,182 won x 1/2) for the plaintiff's hand-○ and OO○, respectively, and the final amount of recognition;

(1) Plaintiff ○○: 35,520,746 won (the inherited amount of KRW 30,850,591 + property damage of KRW 670,155 + 4 million)

(2) Plaintiff O○○: 34,850,591 won (the inheritance amount of KRW 30,850,591 + KRW 4 million) (3) Plaintiff Park○-○, and △△△△: 50,000 won, respectively, for each 500,000 won.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, Defendant ○○ Metropolitan City is obligated to pay to Plaintiff ○○○○○, 34,850,591 won, Plaintiff 1’s remaining claims against Defendant ○○ Metropolitan City, and 50,000 won and damages for delay calculated at an annual rate of 20% under the Civil Act from July 4, 2004 to November 22, 2006, which is the day following the day of this case’s accident in which the Plaintiffs sought against Defendant ○○○○○○○, and △△△△△△△△△△, respectively, for each of the above amounts, and for each of the above amounts, the damages for delay calculated at an annual rate of 35,520,746 won and 34,850,591 won, and 50,000 won and each of the above amounts shall be dismissed as it is without merit. Each of the claims against Defendant ○○ Metropolitan City and its respective claims against Defendant ○○○○○ shall be dismissed as it is without merit.

Judges Kang Dong-dong