2015 Doz. 59074 Compensation (as referred to in this paragraph)

1. The plaintiff himself/herself, who is a litigant of the deceased A (name B prior to her name) and the plaintiff

C (former Name: D)

2. The lawsuits of the deceased A;

E (former name: F)

The plaintiffs' Address Pyeongtaek-si Special Zone

Since the Plaintiffs are minors, the legal representative G

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Kim Dong-hwan

1. H;

Since it is a minor, the legal representative I, MaJ

2. I

3. J. 3

Defendant 1, 2, and 3’s address Jeon Jin-gu

4. K;

Since it is a minor, the legal representative L, mother M

5. L.

6. M;

Defendant 4, 5, and 6’s address Jeon Jin-gu

7. 0

Since it is a minor, the legal representative P, Q

8. P.

9. Q. Q.

Defendant 7, 8, and 9’s address Busan Daegu Shipping Daegu

Defendant 1 through 9 Law Firm Domina, Counsel for defendant 1-9

Attorney Cho Sun-ok

10. R

Since it is a minor, the legal representative S, mother T

11. S

12. T;

Defendant 10, 11, and 12’s net address

July 1, 2016

August 12, 2016

1. The Defendants jointly pay to Plaintiff C 19, 918, 590 won, 3,000 won to Plaintiff E, and 5% per annum from September 16, 201 to August 12, 2016, and 15% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment.

2. The plaintiffs' remaining claims against the defendants are dismissed.

3. Of the litigation costs, 70% is borne by the Plaintiffs, and the remainder by the Defendants.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The Defendants shall pay to each of the Plaintiffs C, KRW 93, KRW 335, KRW 296, KRW 5,000, and KRW 00 to Plaintiff E, and from September 16, 201 to June 9, 2016, KRW 5% per annum, and from the following day to the full payment date, 15% per annum.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff C was in attendance at the second and sixth U.S. High School located in the Jeonju-si in 201, and Defendant H andO were in attendance at the same Ban as Plaintiff C, Defendant K and R were in attendance at the second and fifth grades of the same middle school.

B. Defendant 0, R, around September 9, 201, and September 15, 201, Defendant Ha had Defendant Ha walked the Plaintiff C with fighting, and Defendant H had the Plaintiff go through fighting. Defendant Ha had the Plaintiff go through fighting on September 10, 201: 30, 11:25, 12: 20, and 11: 20, and 11:0 on September 15, 201, and 11:0: (a) around 30, 201; (b) around 25, 200, at around 6:00, Plaintiff C’s head and c head; and (c) around 25, 2000; and (d) the head and cat with assault with the Plaintiff’s head and shoulder.

C. Defendant 0, R, on September 15, 201, and September 16, 2011, Defendant C had Defendant C walk the Plaintiff’s vision and put the Plaintiff into fighting, and Defendant K used the Plaintiff’s head and face level on September 15, 201 and on September 16, 201, around 25 and around 09:35: the price of the Plaintiff C’s head and face level on the drinking and hand-on-site of around 201.

D. Plaintiff C suffered from injury, such as thale, dale, dale, sale, sale, and sale, which was reduced to the assault described in the above paragraphs (b) and (c) above (hereinafter “the instant assault”), and received hospitalized treatment from Vale, during the period from September 16, 201 to October 8, 2011, and received from Valeological department on October 14, 201, and received from each stress diagnosis from X mental department on February 2, 2012.

E. Plaintiff C and E were the children of G and A, and their parents were married on August 14, 2002, and they were brought up on by her mother. A died on October 20, 2013, which was after the instant lawsuit was brought up by her mother.

Defendant I, J, the parents of Defendant H, Defendant L, and M are the parents of Defendant K, Defendant P, Defendant S, and Q are the father of Defendant 0, Defendant S, and Defendant R.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8, 11, 12, 19, 20, 21

The evidence shall include the number, hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul's entry in the evidence No. 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination

(a) Occurrence of liability for damages;

1) Grounds for liability for damages

According to the facts of recognition, as Defendant 0 and R teachers, Defendant H and K assaulted Plaintiff C with the Plaintiff, thereby causing injury to the Plaintiff, such as thale, and causing stress after credit, and Defendant 0, R, H, and K (hereinafter “Defendant 2”) are liable for compensation for the damages suffered by the Plaintiffs as the perpetrator of the instant assault.

In addition, even if a minor is held liable for tort due to his ability to perform his responsibility, if there is a proximate causal relation with the minor's breach of duty by the supervisor, the supervisor shall be liable for damages (see Supreme Court Decision 93Da6058, Aug. 23, 1994, etc.). Defendant I, and J shall be held liable for damages as one half of the tort. Defendant H's, Defendant L, Defendant P, and Q are the parents of Defendant K, Defendant S, and Q as each of the parents of Defendant R. The students of 13 years old at the time of the assault in this case were the parents of each parent, and the students of 13 years old at the time of the assault in this case were under the protection and supervision of their parents, and the remaining Defendants of the Defendant student's parents are the parents of the school, and have the duty of care and supervision so that they do not cause harm to other children or cause harm to the Plaintiff, despite having been negligent in performing their duty of care and supervision.

Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable for damages suffered by Plaintiff C and Plaintiff C’s mother by committing an illegal act against Plaintiff C.

2) Limitation on liability

However, in full view of the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 12 and Eul evidence Nos. 4 and the purport of the whole arguments, the plaintiff C’s liability for damages is limited to 70% of the defendants in consideration of the above circumstances and the background of violence, the treatment related to mental suffering, etc., as well as the following facts: the plaintiff C used to assault defendant H and Eul during the course of the assault in this case; the defendant K suffered from the 6th day of the 3rd side of the right side; and the plaintiff C suffered from the scambling of the balance and the scambling of the scambling part; and the fact that the plaintiff C did not actively with the scambling part of the scambling part.

(b) Scope of damages;

1) Written treatment expenses

The Plaintiffs asserted that the Defendants are obligated to pay KRW 11,793,858 for the treatment costs, but only the amount of KRW 11,739,258 is recognized as indicated in the following table. The Plaintiff claims KRW 54,600 in addition to the amount indicated in the table below, but this appears to have been based on the calculation statement (54,000 won) of the medical expenses of KRW 10 related to the treatment received on January 26, 2012 at the department of Y mental health. This part of the medical expenses is overlapping as shown in the evidence No. 26-2.

A person shall be appointed.

(ii) future treatment costs;

Plaintiff C is currently receiving only art therapy without having to receive mental treatment because of its excessive awareness of challenge. Plaintiff C paid KRW 45,00 once a week from June 2016 to KRW 6,025,986 for the next three years ( KRW 180,000 per month x KRW 36 months x KRW 333,4777). However, in light of the developments and degree of the assault of this case, Plaintiff C’s assertion that the amount of five years after the date of the assault of this case was submitted by the Plaintiffs as of which five years have passed since the date of the assault of this case, the written evidence Nos. 12 subparag. 1), and No. 26 No. 1 of evidence No. 26 cannot be accepted as the Plaintiff’s assertion that art treatment in the future is insufficient to acknowledge it necessary for the future for a certain period of time.

3) Nursing expenses

The plaintiff C argues that the father G, who is the guardian, has to go to the hospital and to go to the hospital because he could not get married, and therefore, he should accompany the guardian, and that the expenses of 12,029,285 won (87,805 won of ordinary wage x 137 days) equivalent to 137 days of ordinary wage for the family care, and that the expenses of 285 won (87,805 won of ordinary wage x 137 days of ordinary wage) should be accompanied for the treatment for the next three years, and therefore, the future nursing expenses of 11,758,037 won (87,805 won of ordinary wage x 4 times a month x 333,777) should be included in the scope of compensation for damages.

However, in light of the fact that the result of the court’s physical examination entrustment to the head of the hospital affiliated with the NFIE shows that the nursing is unnecessary, and that the plaintiff C currently reaches 18 years of age, even if the plaintiff C’s assertion is based on the plaintiff C’s assertion, art treatment is being provided on the one-day Saturday and should be received in the future, and that art treatment is only 50 minutes (Evidence A No. 25-1) during the one-time period, it is not recognized that the plaintiff C’s care needs to be provided in the care of the guardian or the daily allowances of the guardian should be paid as the opening cost.

4) Limitation on liability

Walking medical expenses 11, 739, 258 won x 70% = 8,217, 480 won (turfs less than won; hereinafter the same shall apply)

5) Mutual Aid Association's reimbursement of medical expenses

The fact that Plaintiff C received KRW 3,298,890 for medical expenses from the Jeollabuk-do School Safety Mutual Aid Association on November 8, 2012 is the said Plaintiff, and it can be recognized by the statement of evidence No. 3 A. As such, the deduction of the above amount is KRW 4,918,590 ( = 8,217, 480 - 3,298, 890) that the Defendants are obliged to pay to Plaintiff C.

6) Consolation money

The plaintiffs sought payment of KRW 10,00,00 as consolation money of Plaintiff C, KRW 50,00, and KRW 10,000 as consolation money of the deceased, but the reasons and degree of the assault of this case, the age of Plaintiff C and the defendant students at the time of the assault of this case, the mental shock that Plaintiff C and their mother received after the assault of this case, the objective conditions and circumstances of Plaintiff C, the transportation expenses incurred in attending the course of receiving treatment after the assault of this case, etc. (the dismissal of the claim for nursing expenses) are not separately sought (the dismissal of the claim for nursing expenses), and other various circumstances shown in the argument of this case, the consolation money of Plaintiff C shall be determined as KRW 6,00,00, KRW 00, KRW 6,000, KRW 00, KRW 00, and KRW 00.

7) Inheritance relations

As a child of the deceased A, the Plaintiffs succeeded to KRW 6,00,000, and KRW 1/2 equity (per 3,000,000) of the deceased A.

8) Sub-decisions

The Defendants jointly have the obligation to jointly file claims against the Plaintiff C regarding the existence and scope of each of the above amounts of KRW 19,918,590 ( = 4,918,590 Won + Plaintiff C consolation money of KRW 12,00,000 + inherited consolation money of KRW 3,00,000 + KRW 3,000,000), Plaintiff E, and each of the above amounts of KRW 3,000,000, which is the final tort, with a significant dispute over the existence and scope of each of the above amounts from September 16, 201, which is the date of the instant judgment, until August 12, 2016, which is the date of the instant judgment, to pay damages for delay calculated by 5% per annum under the Civil Act and 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of the full payment.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is justified within the scope of each of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are without merit, and they are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Young-hoon

Judges Min Il-young

Judges Kim Sung-sung

1) The latter disability diagnosis report drawn up by the person on August 21, 2013 is the latter disability diagnosis report.