Plaintiff 1 and one other (Law Firm Han-ju, Attorney Lee Lee In-ju, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and five others (Law Firm Dasan et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

September 29, 2011

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Defendant 1, Defendant 2, Defendant 3, and Defendant Gyeonggi-do shall pay 80,000,000 won to each of the plaintiffs 1, and 20,000,000 won to each of the plaintiffs 5, and 6 shall pay 20,00,000 won to each of the plaintiffs 2, respectively, at the rate of 20% per annum from the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. Plaintiff 1, as Plaintiff 2’s children, was suffering from opical malutism from the time of birth to the age of 6, and there was a physical and verbal development disorder due to nutrition and difficulty in water surface before performing surgery on the age of 6.

B. The Plaintiff 1, due to a speech development poor, was living in the first and second years at the △ Elementary School and △△ Elementary School, was living in the special team, and was transferred to ○ Elementary School in 2007, which was the third grade of the elementary school, and was living in the general team. In the first semester in 2009, Defendant 1 was enrolled in the fifth year, and was assigned to six classes in which Defendant 1 was a school.

C. Plaintiff 1, as seen above, appears to have an attitude of dispute in the process of growing with a future group due to the lack of sociality due to the delay in the development of speech ability, and that it is difficult for Plaintiff 1 to adapt to school life due to the occurrence of frequent disputes, such as the expression of his desire without clearly expressing it, and the concentration of conflict with Defendant 1, which is going to correct it, and thus, Plaintiff 2 resisted against Defendant 1’s disposition against Plaintiff 1, and filed a civil petition with Defendant 1 at the ○○ Elementary School including Defendant 1 at the Office of Education, etc., and it was held on June 11, 2009 on June 19, 2009 (representative Defendant 6), and Plaintiff 1 transferred to △△ Elementary School as of June 19, 2009.

D. Plaintiff 1 was placed in the middle school of △△, where Nonparty 1 was a teacher in the middle school, and Defendant 3 was placed in the middle school in 2010 and was placed in the middle school in which Defendant 3 was a teacher in the middle school.

E. Although Plaintiff 2 filed a petition against Defendant 1, Defendant 3, etc. with the National Human Rights Commission, the Commission investigated and decided to dismiss or dismiss the petition on the ground that there is no objective evidence and does not constitute an act of infringement of human rights, or that the case was not subject to investigation by the Commission. When Plaintiff 1 was attending the fifth and first semester of ○ Elementary School, Defendant 5, the assistant principal of the above school, and Defendant 6, the representative of the parent conference, who was the principal of the above school, were accused of defamation, but was subject to a disposition of non-guilty on April 27, 201 from the branch office of the Suwon District Prosecutors’ Office

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute between the parties, Gap evidence Nos. 7, 9, 12, Eul evidence Nos. 6 and 9 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

① The Plaintiffs, due to the following acts by Defendant 1 and Defendant 3, were diagnosed as emotional distress and conducted both mental and verbal therapy, and Plaintiff 2, who is under obligation to receive rehabilitation treatment education up to now, is also suffering from mental pain. Defendant 1 and Defendant 3, as direct tortfeasor, and Defendant 2 and Defendant 5, and Defendant 5 and Defendant 6, as direct tortfeasor, should compensate the Plaintiffs or Plaintiff 2 for their negligence in performing their official duties as employers of Defendant 1, Defendant 3, Defendant 2, and Defendant 5, as follows: (a) as direct tortfeasor, Defendant 2 and Defendant 5, and Defendant 6, as direct tortfeasor; (b) Defendant 5 and Defendant 6, as public allegation of facts and false facts, damaged the Plaintiffs’ honor; and (c) Defendant Gyeonggi-do should compensate the Plaintiffs or Plaintiff 2 for their respective damages.

(1) Defendant 1’s assertion of breach of duty as a teacher

(4) While Plaintiff 1 became aware of the fact that the overall learning ability and social development of Plaintiff 1 had been delayed, and that there was a lack of ability to adapt to the language development body and social life of Plaintiff 1, Defendant 1 had an opportunity to take appropriate educational care and measures against students during school life, despite the fact that Plaintiff 1 had a duty to take such educational care and measures so that he/she could be frighted from his/her friendship with his/her friendship, etc., he/she did not make efforts to grasp the cause of his/her aggressive behavior, such as noise during school, and even if he/she did not go against the Plaintiff 1’s instruction, he/she did not make efforts to remove fundamental reasons, and even if Nonparty 2 appeared to have been aware of the fact that he/she did not go against the Plaintiff 1’s school life, he/she did not go against the Plaintiff 1’s request for his/her head and did not go against the Plaintiff 1’s self-governing school, etc. on April 21, 2009.

(2) Defendant 3’s assertion of breach of duty as a teacher of the office

Defendant 3, as Plaintiff 1 was enrolled in the sixth-year course at △△ Elementary School, he left the school despite his continuous harassment. Nonparty 4, Nonparty 5, and Nonparty 6, who were enrolled in the same school, left the school despite his continuous harassment. ② He sought a part of the school on April 28, 2010, and sought a part of the school on September 3, 201, and conducted a physical punishment on the ground that he was twice head of the school on June 3 of the same year. ③ he was allowed to take after-school classes for more than one month without a partnership. ④ After-school classes were determined differently from the subjects applied by Plaintiff 2, he did not write the school, ⑤ was used in English language in the middle of the school after school, and was assigned to the school at the time of the supervision of Plaintiff 1 as Plaintiff 1’s book and so on.

(3) The defendant 2 and the defendant 5's principal's assertion of violation of duty

Defendant 2, who served as the principal of ○○ Elementary School, and Defendant 5, respectively, and Defendant 2, despite the demand of Plaintiff 2 to provide education and guidance at the school level for students in need of special consideration such as Plaintiff 1, Defendant 2 did not neglect the Plaintiff 2’s appropriate demand without any particular reason and take any measures.

(4) Defendant 5 and Defendant 6’s assertion of defamation

Defendant 5 heard the awareness that Defendant 6 was holding a faculty conference to request the transfer of Plaintiff 2, and explained the student’s statement prepared in advance to Defendant 6 to the extent that the student’s unilateral statement was true, thereby aiding Defendant 6’s defamation act. Defendant 6 only consulted Defendant 1 and the relevant students without filing a complaint with the police. Defendant 6, by misunderstanding that the police called Plaintiff 1 and the relevant students on June 9, 2010, which was held on the parents’ conference held on June 9, 2010, thereby hindering Plaintiff 1 who is the Plaintiff 2’s seated, thereby impairing the education. Since Plaintiff 1’s falsehood and Plaintiff 2’s inappropriate address, Plaintiff 1’s statement was considerably damaged, thereby impairing the reputation of the Plaintiffs.

(5) Defendant Gyeonggi-do’s assertion of breach of duty

Defendant Gyeonggi-do was negligent in the management and supervision as the supervisor of Defendant 1, Defendant 3, Defendant 2, and Defendant 5.

(b) Markets:

(1) Determination as to Defendant 1

It is insufficient to recognize that Defendant 1 unilaterally listens to the statements of other students, Plaintiff 1, and Plaintiff 1 were treated as abnormal son without understanding the reasons for the dispute. There is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise. Defendant 1 allowed Plaintiff 1 to take lessons outside the school room for 3 weeks, which caused Plaintiff 1 to take lessons during the school hours. The fact that Plaintiff 1 did not go beyond the school room for 3 weeks, it is difficult for the students to raise problems, and that it is difficult for the students to see their snow with the foregoing Plaintiffs, and that it is difficult for them to see that Plaintiff 1’s participation in the school course, which is difficult to concentrate on Plaintiff 1 due to the development of language ability, and that Plaintiff 1’s treatment of Plaintiff 1 as abnormal son. However, it is difficult to recognize that the Plaintiffs exceeded the duty to protect Plaintiff 1’s right by taking into account the fact that Plaintiff 1’s absence of the duty to protect Plaintiff 1’s human rights, and that it is difficult to recognize that it exceeded the duty to protect Plaintiff 1’s 2.

(2) Determination as to Defendant 3

It is insufficient to recognize that Defendant 3 left home with Nonparty 4, Nonparty 5, and Nonparty 6’s continuous harassment. The Plaintiff’s assertion that Defendant 3 was punished on April 28, 2010, 29, 200 only when he was sent home on June 3, 200, that it was difficult to find otherwise, and that it was difficult to find that Plaintiff 1 was working on the part of Defendant 3, rather than Defendant 3, and that Plaintiff 1 was working on the school without a partner, and that it was difficult to find that Plaintiff 1 was sent back to the school for the first time, and that it was difficult to find that Plaintiff 1 might have been sent back to the school without a partner, and that it was difficult to find that Plaintiff 1 might have been sent back to the school for the first time, and that it was difficult to find that Plaintiff 1 might have been sent back to the school without a partner’s consent, and that it was difficult to find that Plaintiff 1 might have been sent back to the school for the first time after the school year.

(3) Determination as to Defendant 2 and Defendant 5

In light of the records presented by the Plaintiff, although the above Defendants demanded the education and guidance at school level for students who need special consideration such as Plaintiff 1, it is difficult to view that they violated their duty of protection and supervision because they did not take any measures, without any specific reason. Rather, Defendant 2 recommended the incorporation of the special team in consideration of Plaintiff 1’s intellectual condition, but refused such recommendation by Plaintiff 2. Thus, the above assertion by the Plaintiffs is without merit.

(4) Determination as to defamation by Defendant 6 and Defendant 5

The plaintiffs' evidence Nos. 7 and 16, which correspond to the plaintiffs' assertion, are merely written on June 9, 2010, that the five-year-old school's parents meeting was opened on June 9, 2010, and Defendant 6 went into learning crisis due to the plaintiff 1 on behalf of his parents, and that the plaintiff 2 sent the opinion of his parents requesting the transfer of the plaintiff 1 due to frequent civil petition to the office of education, etc. because it was difficult to view that the defendant 6 and the defendant 5 conspired to do so and did not harm the plaintiffs' reputation by pointing out false facts. Rather, it is difficult to view that the defendant 5, who was an assistant principal, did not have any other evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff 2 was the above school's principal, and it was hard to view that the plaintiff 1 and the defendant 2, who was the defendant 6's representative of the school, was the defendant 1's victim's complaint to verify the facts of the plaintiff 1's children's complaint and the defendant 6's representative's statement.

(5) Determination on Defendant Gyeonggi-do

As seen above, it is insufficient to recognize that Defendant 1, Defendant 3, Defendant 2, and Defendant 5 did not perform the duty of protection and supervision against Plaintiff 1 as an educator. As such, the Plaintiff’s claim that held the Defendant Gyeonggi-do as the supervisor responsible for supervision and supervision is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Gyeong-Gyeong-hoon