(a) Ability of high school students to assume responsibility for the remaining 16 years of age and 5 months of age;

B. Liability for tort of minors with ability to assume responsibility and liability for damages of a supervisor

(a) Any person who is enrolled in the second year of a high school which has remaining 16 years of age and 5 months of age, has an intelligence to change his responsibility for tort;

B. If a loss was incurred due to a minor’s illegal act, and there is a proximate causal relation with the minor’s breach of duty by the supervisor, the supervisor shall be liable to compensate as the general tortfeasor.

A. Article 753 of the Civil Act; Article 755(1) of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 84Meu474 Decided July 10, 1984

Plaintiff 1 and two others, Plaintiffs Red Donation, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee

Defendant 1 and one other, Defendant 1 et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant-appellee

Seoul High Court Decision 87Na2190 delivered on December 23, 1987

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendants.

As to the Grounds of Appeal:

(1) The decision of the court below that the defendant 2, who attended the second year of high school which was 16 years old and 5 months old, has an intelligence to change the responsibility for the illegal act is justified and it is not acceptable to criticize this point.

(2) In a case where damages were incurred due to a minor’s illegal act with the above 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 as a general tortfeasor. According to the judgment of the court below, according to Defendant 2’s judgment, Defendant 2 was frequently at ordinary times, as well as other children, and the instant case did not err in the recognition of this point unilaterally with Plaintiff 2, and cannot be seen as having committed an injury. Thus, Defendant 1’s general and ordinary supervisory duty as his father is affirmed. Accordingly, it is reasonable for the court below to recognize the Defendant’s liability for damages of this case as a result, since there is no part to criticize the Defendant’s criticism in the course of the conclusion of the judgment, it is difficult to accept as it is based on the fact that there is no reason.

(3) In light of the Plaintiff 2’s negligence in the occurrence of the instant accident recognized by the lower court, the lower court’s determination that set the offset ratio by 30/100 is reasonable and cannot be accepted.

(4) All the arguments are without merit, and they are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)