The case affirming the court below's measures that held that the total of the gross negligence ratio of the students of national schools and their parents, who were absent from the pumping place, neglected their duty of guidance and supervision, exceeds 60%

The case affirming the court below's decision that it is reasonable to view that the rate of negligence exceeds 60% if the victims who were absent from the pumping place was negligent in entering the water course of the pumping place and the drainage course of the pumping place, the height of which is above their height, and their parents are also responsible for thoroughly guiding and supervising the victims who were her ageed, without permission, so that they do not play water at a distance from the place where they were living at a distance or play water at a dangerous place such as the accident place, even though they were negligent in doing so, if they were not negligent in doing so.

Article 763 (Civil Act Article 396 (Article 396)

Supreme Court Decision 66Da730 Delivered on June 21, 1966, and 79Da740 Delivered on June 26, 1979

Plaintiff 1 and two others

Dongjin Farmland Improvement Association Attorney Dog-sik et al., Counsel for the defendant

Gwangju High Court Decision 91Na5821 delivered on January 14, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that the defendant's association's 5th anniversary of the above 5th anniversary of the above 6th anniversary of the fact-finding process that the plaintiff's 5th anniversary of the above 6th anniversary of the above 4th anniversary of the above 6th anniversary of the fact-finding process that the plaintiff's 5th anniversary of the above 6th anniversary of the above 6th anniversary of the above 6th anniversary of the above 6th anniversary of the above 6th anniversary of the above 6th anniversary of the above 6th anniversary of the fact-finding, the plaintiff's 1 was responsible for installing the 5th anniversary of the above 6th anniversary of the above 6th anniversary of the above 6th anniversary of the above 6th anniversary of the above 6th anniversary of the fact-finding's negligence, the plaintiff's 1 was likely to have been installed at the above 40th of the above 4th anniversary of the above 6th anniversary of the above 5th anniversary of the above 1st of the disaster.

Therefore, the appeal is 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.

Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)