The parents of the suspect's parents' duty of supervision and comparative negligence

The national school children of the age of 7 years are able to be able to make a little change in the risk, or can not be seen as having a complete side ability, so if the parents responsible for care and custody of the children are injured by the traffic accident in the road where the risk of the traffic accident exists, the negligence of the children and the negligence of the parents, such as the negligence of the victims, which neglected the duty of supervision, are concurrent with the causes of the accident.

Article 763 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff 1 and two others

Defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 69Na29 delivered on June 3, 1969, decided June 3, 1969

All appeals by the plaintiffs and the defendant are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party who has filed a final appeal.

First, we examine the Defendant’s attorney’s grounds of appeal.

1. According to the original judgment of the defendant, although the non-party 1, who is the defendant, operated the 50 driver's flag on the day of the accident, and passed the road front of the branch office of the Jinjin Land Improvement Cooperative located in his residence, and such road was salvable by one of the children on the street, and the above non-party 1 found that the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were playing on the street, and did not have a duty of care to prevent the occurrence of the accident by negligence on the road as stated in its holding that the non-party 1 had a relatively high risk of causing the accident on the street, and that the non-party 1 did not have a duty of care to prevent the occurrence of the accident on the road, and that the non-party 1 did not have a duty of care to prevent the occurrence of the accident by negligence on the part of the non-party 1, who did not have a duty of care to prevent the occurrence of the accident on the street.

2. Since the victim's lineal ascendant, lineal descendant, and spouse who suffered from the victim's tort can claim consolation money for mental distress from the perpetrator according to the principle of Article 750 of the Civil Code, there is a view of the party members' precedents, it cannot be said that the original judgment was erroneous in accepting the plaintiff 2 and the plaintiff 3's claim for consolation money, the parent of the plaintiff 1 who is the victim of the accident in this case, and in calculating the amount of compensation for the tort, it shall not be based only on the degree of damage of the victim, but it shall be based on considering the situation that the original judgment was based on the defendant's negligence and the degree of the victim's negligence, and all the circumstances related to the specific amount of damage in this case should be examined, so there is no error of law in offsetting the amount of compensation for the victim's negligence in this case from among the total damage caused by the defendant's negligence, and there is no error in the judgment of the court below in offsetting the amount of compensation for the victim's negligence in this case.

Next, we examine the plaintiffs' grounds of appeal.

1. That there was no error in the measure of offset in calculating the amount of compensation for damages caused by the accident on the part of the defendant involved in the accident, which is the first issue of the theory of lawsuit, which points out the measure in question in the judgment on the second issue of the defendant's ground of appeal, is without merit.

2. According to the original judgment, the court below found that the plaintiff 1 was the first grade student of the national school of 7 years old at the time of the accident at the time of the accident, and that there was a little change in the risk. However, the court below held that the plaintiff 2 and the plaintiff 3, who was the parent of the plaintiff 1 responsible for care and custody, had a duty to prevent the plaintiff 1 from playing in the dangerous place like the accident scene, on the premise that the above plaintiff 1 was responsible for controlling the plaintiff 2 and the above plaintiff 3, who was the parent of the plaintiff 1, was not in charge of care and custody at the accident site at the accident site, and that the above plaintiff 1 was playing in the accident site at the accident site at the time of the accident at the time of the accident, and it is clear that the negligence that the plaintiff 1 and his parents did not regulate the plaintiff 1 from playing in such place at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident and that there was an error cited in the theory of the lawsuit in light of records or legal principles.

Therefore, according to the unanimous opinion of all participating judges, it is decided in accordance with Articles 400, 384, 95, and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Ma-dong (Presiding Judge) and Ma-dong B-Jed Han-gu