(a) Scope of the obligation of a teacher to protect and supervise students;

(b) The case holding that if a student in the first grade of middle school 1 knife knife knife knife on the knife knife which one of the students in the same half grade knife after knife knife knife while the student in the same half grade knife knife knife kn

The duty to protect and supervise students of school teachers is not a duty to supervise students on behalf of the legal supervisor such as the person with parental authority, etc. under the Education Act, but a duty to supervise students in the school, and it is limited to a living relationship with the educational activities in the school and its close relationship. Even if it is a living relationship within the scope of such duty, the duty to protect and supervise the students shall be liable for the violation of the duty to protect and supervise the teachers, only if the accident is anticipated or predictability to normally occur in school life.

Article 755 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff 1 and three others

Seoul Metropolitan Government

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 28,351,06 won, 3,12,560 won, 3,000,000 won to the plaintiff 3, and 1,000,000 won to the plaintiff 4, and 5% per annum from October 7, 1989 to the date of this judgment, and 25% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

On October 7, 1989, at around 10:40 on October 10, 1989, Plaintiff 1 attended the first grade and second grade school in the science room of the same school, completed biological classes at the science room of the same school, and immediately after the completion of the school, the fact that Plaintiff 1 suffered injuries, such as knife, knife, heat, red escape, etc. from the right eye of the same Plaintiff’s hand, resulting in such injuries as knife, knife, knife, knife, and knife, resulting in a

The plaintiffs' attorney asserts that the plaintiff 1's above knife knife observed the knife in accordance with the orders of the non-party 1, who is the teacher in charge of the above biological classes at the time, and cut the knife to prepare the report after the end of the class hours, the non-party 2, who was flife next to the plaintiff in front of the classroom, was flife with the same plaintiff's arms because the non-party 2, who was flife in front of the classroom, was flife with the above knife that the plaintiff's arms was flife with the same plaintiff's arms because he was flife with the same plaintiff's knife and flife, who caused the plaintiff's knife and the above knife knife to the plaintiff's knife and the above knife's knife.

Therefore, a school teacher established and operated by a local government is obligated to protect and supervise students under the Education Act on behalf of a legal supervisor, such as a person with parental authority. However, this duty does not affect the whole life of students in the school, but is limited to the living relationship closely related to educational activities in the school and its close relationship. Even if it is within the scope of such duty, it is anticipated or predictability that an accident may normally occur in the school life, the teacher has a duty to protect and supervise the students. The time of the school immediately after the occurrence of the accident in this case is easy or impossible to conduct the following classes and quality of educational activities. Since the time of the school life is closely indivisible at time, it is difficult for the plaintiffs to have a duty to maintain and supervise the school's general protection and supervision over the students' activities within the class during that time. However, even if the above accident occurred as alleged by the plaintiffs, it is difficult for the general public to predict the situation, and thus, it cannot be said that there is no other specific duty to protect and supervise the students outside of the school without any specific reason.

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

Judges Oapuk-deok (Presiding Judge)