206Da80650 Damage (as stated)

1- (1-....... -)

2. Stambling (E);

3. Gambling (LITTI);

4. Stambling.

The Plaintiffs’ Address Goyang-si

Plaintiff 1 and 4 are minors, and they are legal representatives of persons with parental authority.

[Defendant-Appellant]

A church (title before changing: a church)

The OECD at high time

Representative Doz. 1

Law Firm Doz.

[Defendant-Appellee]

Seoul High Court Decision 20054104254 Decided November 9, 2006

April 24, 2008

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

The court below, by taking account of the adopted evidence, is the elementary school students attending the principal school of the defendant church.

The plaintiff Park Jong-il, who was a part of the defendant church, was waiting for the defendant's operation shuttle bus that starts from the vicinity of the church building to start up their own house after completing worships at the defendant church.

After recognizing the facts as indicated in its reasoning, the fact that the plaintiff Park Geman Geman Gemang Gemang Gemang Gemang's name was real name with the right eye, the defendant church has a duty to supervise the members of the same minor as the plaintiff Park Park on behalf of the legal supervisor, such as the person with parental authority, and the accident of this case occurred within the living relationship closely indivisible from the wall of the church immediately after the completion of the towing, in which the religious activity, quality, and time occurred in the immediate adjacent to the church that was 22 meters away from the wall, and thus, the defendant church cannot be exempted from the responsibility for the violation of its duty to protect and supervise the church. In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are just and acceptable, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or misapprehension of the legal principles on the scope of

2. As to the ground of appeal No. 2, in light of all the circumstances such as the time, place, age of the perpetrator and the victim of the accident in this case, the defendant could have predicted the occurrence of the accident in this case. Thus, the decision of the court below which held to the same purport is correct, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or misapprehension of the legal principle as otherwise alleged in the ground

3. Conclusion

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 Jeon Soo-ahn

Justices Shin Jae-chul et al.

Justices Kim Gin-tae

Justices Cha Han-sung