[1] The case finding a proximate causal relationship between harassment such as violence in elementary school and suicide of victim students

[2] The scope of the legal supervisor of a minor who has no ability to assume responsibility, and the scope of the legal supervisor's responsibility for protection and supervision on behalf of the teacher, etc., and the relationship between both parties

[3] The scope of the principal's or teachers' duty to protect and supervise students and the standards for the recognition of liability for damages

[4] The case holding that the parent and the local government are liable for damages as joint tortfeasor on the ground that the parent and the local government committed the suicide case due to concurrent negligence between the parent's negligence and the teacher's negligence and the principal's negligence

[1] The case holding that where harassment, such as assault in elementary school, continues for a considerable period of time and the victim's mental disorder thereby led to suicide, a proximate causal relation is recognized as long as the harassment, such as assault by aggressor students, is the main cause of suicide even if other factors act as part of suicide

[2] Under Article 755 of the Civil Act, the responsibility of the legal supervisor, such as the person with parental authority, to supervise a minor who is not capable of being responsible pursuant to Article 755 of the Civil Act, to protect and supervise the minor's livelihood. The responsibility of the legal supervisor to protect and supervise the teacher, etc. on behalf of the legal supervisor, does not affect the student's living relationship within the school, but is limited to his/her living relationship closely indivisible and closely indivisible to his/her educational activities in the school, and the fact that there is such a representative supervisor, the legal

[3] 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 is not a duty to supervise students on behalf of a legal supervisor, such as a person with parental authority, and it does not affect all the students' living relationship in the school. However, if it is anticipated or predictability that an accident may normally occur in school life in consideration of the time and place of educational activities, the ability of the perpetrator to separate the offender, the offender's personality and conduct, the relationship between the perpetrator and the victim, and other circumstances, and if it is anticipated or predictability that the accident may normally occur in school life, the principal or teacher shall be responsible for the violation of the duty to protect and supervise the students.

[4] The case holding that the parent and the local government are liable for damages as joint tortfeasor on the ground that the parent's negligence and the leader's negligence concurrently competes with the other parent's negligence and the other parent's suicide case

[1] Article 750 of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 750, 755, and 760 (1) of the Civil Act / [3] Articles 755 and 756 of the Civil Act, Article 2 (1) of the State Compensation Act / [4] Articles 755, 756, and 760 (1) of the Civil Act, Article 2 (1) of the State Compensation Act

[2] Supreme Court Decision 68Da1804 delivered on January 28, 1969 (No. 17-1, 112) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 92Da13646 delivered on February 12, 1993 (Gong1993Sang, 960), Supreme Court Decision 93Da6058 delivered on August 23, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 2502), Supreme Court Decision 96Da44433 delivered on June 13, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 2147), Supreme Court Decision 97Da15258 delivered on June 27, 199 (Gong197Ha, 2363), Supreme Court Decision 200Da29409 delivered on September 29, 205, 294).

Plaintiff 1 and two others (Attorneys Lee Jong-sung et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Gyeonggi-do 3 others (Law Firm Effunwon, Attorneys Choi Jung-tae, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2004Na52844 Delivered on March 31, 2005

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Determination on Defendant 2, 3, and 4’s appeal

A. After recognizing the facts as stated in its holding, the court below found that the deceased suffered from bullying, such as violence, etc., for several months from the aggressor students, caused suicide and eventually caused suicide. Since the aggressor students are students in the sixth grade of elementary school before and after the age of 12 at the time of the accident and are incapable of legal responsibilities due to their own act, the above defendants who have legal responsibilities to supervise them as the parents of aggressor students did not prove that they did not neglect their duty of care as the guardian and supervisor, the court below held that they have the obligation to compensate for damages suffered by the deceased and the plaintiffs due to the above tort pursuant to Article 755 (1) of the Civil Act. In light of the records, the court below's findings of fact and judgment are just and acceptable. The court below did not err in the misapprehension of facts as alleged in the ground of appeal.

In addition, harassment, such as assault, etc. in elementary school, is likely to cause physical and mental pain to the victim who has not attained normal age and has not been physically and mentally mature, and it is possible to predict that the victim may commit suicide if bullying, such as assault, etc. continues to exist for a considerable period. In this case, the aggressor students in the 6th grade of the elementary school where they are 12 years old, and even if they do not have intelligence to change their responsibility, they have considerable self-regulation and separation ability, even if they are in the 6th grade of the elementary school where they do not have intelligence to change their responsibility, and prevention was conducted at school due to social problems of collective harassment in school at the time, and the aggressor students were also aware of such harm. In full view of these circumstances, there is a proximate causal relation between the victim's harassment such as assault, etc. and the deceased's suicide. Furthermore, there is no reasonable causal relation between the deceased's suicide and the victim's suicide on the day of the suicide.

The ground of appeal on this part is without merit.

B. Under Article 755 of the Civil Act, the responsibility of legal supervisor, such as the person with parental authority, to supervise a minor who is not capable of being responsible, is the overall living of the minor. The responsibility of legal supervisor to protect and supervise teachers, etc. on behalf of the person with legal supervisor, does not affect all the students' living relationship in the school, but it is limited to educational activities in the school and living relationship closely indivisiblely related thereto, and the legal supervisor's responsibility of legal supervisor is not dodged.

Examining the record in light of the above legal principles, the court below is justified in recognizing the negligence due to the negligence of the above defendants' duty to protect and supervise the aggressor students' parents, and on the ground that the negligence due to the negligence due to the non-party 1 and the non-party 2's negligence due to the neglect of duty to protect and supervise the principals, the above defendants and the defendant Gyeonggi-do are concurrent with the above defendants. The court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the responsibility to protect and supervise the minors, such as parents and the teacher at the school, or in the misconception of facts due to insufficient deliberation. The ground of appeal pointing this out

C. The fact-finding or the determination of the ratio of comparative negligence in a tort compensation case shall be deemed to fall under the exclusive authority of the fact-finding court unless it is deemed that it is remarkably unreasonable in light of the principle of equity (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 93Da1466, Nov. 26, 1993; 98Da38623, Feb. 22, 2000; 2001Da64493, Jan. 8, 2002).

Upon examining the records in light of the above legal principles, the fact-finding or the determination of the ratio of the court below on the grounds of comparative negligence shall not be deemed significantly unreasonable in light of the principle of equity, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or misconception of facts due to insufficient deliberation, etc.

2. Judgment on the appeal by Defendant Gyeonggi-do

The principal or teacher of a school established and operated by a local government is obligated to protect and supervise students. Such duty to protect and supervise students is not a duty to supervise students on behalf of a legal supervisor, such as a person with parental authority, under the Education Act, and does not affect all the students' living relationship in the school. However, if an accident is anticipated or predictability to occur normally in school life in consideration of the time and place of educational activities, the offender's ability to distinguish the offender, the character and conduct of the perpetrator, the relationship between the perpetrator and the victim, and other various circumstances, the principal or teacher shall be liable for the violation of the duty to protect and supervise students (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 93Da60588, Aug. 23, 1994; 2001Da5760, Apr. 24, 201).

After finding facts as stated in its holding, the court below found that the deceased suffered from violence and other harassment without any justifiable reason during several months, and eventually caused suicide. In most of the aggressor students' assault and other distress disorder occurred in the school, and continued several months, and group harassment in the school has emerged as a serious social problem at the time. Thus, the non-party 1, a teacher in charge of the deceased, could have discovered violence, etc. against the deceased and prevented the result of suicide of the deceased in advance. Further, even after detection of assault and violence against the deceased, the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 refused a request from the other parents of the deceased for isolation of the victim and the deceased without any mental damage caused by the victim's negligence, the court below determined that the plaintiffs were not liable for damages incurred by the non-party 2, a public official, due to the non-party 1 and the non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 1's suicide and the plaintiffs's non-party 1's non-party 2's negligence.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, the court below's fact-finding and judgment are just and acceptable. The court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to proximate causal relation and predictability of suicide in the liability for damages due to violation of the rules of evidence, or in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the violation of the duty of safety, such as teachers, etc.

3. Conclusion

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

Justices Shin Hyun-chul (Presiding Justice)