[1] The scope of “school safety accident” under Article 2 subparag. 6 of the former Act on the Prevention of and Compensation for Accidents at School, and the degree of proof of the causal relationship between the school safety accident and the death as a requirement to receive the bereaved family’s benefits and funeral expenses under Articles 39 and 40 of the same Act

[2] The case holding that the above accident constitutes a "school safety accident" under the former Act on the Prevention of and Compensation for Accidents at School, and there is a proximate causal relation between the accident and the death of Gap in light of the circumstance of the accident, etc. in case where a student Gap et al. was rapidly affected by his/her class to observe the school hours and used his/her awareness in the school corridor as he/she died while receiving medical treatment at the hospital due to the heart resistance and a difficulty in respiratory, etc.

[3] Whether the principle of liability for negligence or the theory of comparative negligence applies to the liability for the payment of mutual aid benefits under the former Act on the Prevention of and Compensation for Accidents at School (negative in principle), and whether the legal principle that takes into account the king that contributed to the expansion of damages in the calculation of civil damages is also applicable to the above mutual aid benefits (negative)

[1] Articles 2 subparag. 6, 39, and 40 of the former Act on the Prevention of and Compensation for Accidents at School (Amended by Act No. 11221, Jan. 26, 2012) / [2] Articles 2 subparag. 6, 39, and 40 of the former Act on the Prevention of and Compensation for Accidents at School / [3] Articles 1, 2 subparag. 6, 5, 11(1), 34, and 43 of the former Act on the Prevention of and Compensation for Accidents at School (Amended by Act No. 11221, Jan. 26, 2012); Articles 396, 750, and 763 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff 1 and one other (Attorney Shin-ho et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The Seoul Special Metropolitan City School Safety Mutual Aid Association (Attorney Kim Jong-chul, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Seoul High Court Decision 201Na16297 decided November 25, 2011

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

The former part of Article 2 subparag. 6 of the former Act on the Prevention of and Compensation for Accidents at School (amended by Act No. 11221, Jan. 26, 2012; hereinafter “School Safety Accident Compensation Act”) provides that an accident in the course of educational activities refers to any accident that causes harm to the life or body of a student, a school employee, or a participant in educational activities, and does not separately stipulate the cause of an accident. Thus, an accident in the course of “educational activities” under Article 2 subparag. 4 of the School Safety Compensation Act and Article 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act is an accident that causes damage to the life or body of a student, a school employee, or a participant in educational activities, and thus, constitutes a school safety accident under the School Safety Accident Compensation Act.

In addition, Article 39 of the School Safety Accident Compensation Act and Article 40 of the same Act provide that the bereaved family's benefits and funeral expenses shall be paid to "the case where the victim died due to the school safety accident". Thus, in order to receive the bereaved family's benefits and funeral expenses, there exists a causal relationship between the school safety accident and the death in order to receive the bereaved family's benefits and funeral expenses. However, if the principal cause of death overlaps with the principal cause of the death and at least the school safety accident caused the death, even if not directly related to the school safety accident, there is a causal relationship between the principal cause of the death and the death. Such causal relationship does not necessarily have to be proved clearly by medical and natural science, and if it is presumed that there is a proximate causal relationship

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the non-party started to work at around 07:05 at the same time as usual school in order to attend school on December 19, 2008. However, as village buses have prided in the wind that does not enter the school hours, and went back to the aftermath of the school, the non-party went to the class rapidly to observe the school hours regardless of how the non-party went to the class, and during that day, around 07:43 of the same day, the non-party was unable to be aware of his own consciousness in the second floor of the school, and the non-party was sent to the Seoul Medical Center at around 07:54 of the same day by the 119 Emergency Medical Center, but the non-party was aware of the fact that the accident, such as the non-party's accident, was caused by the non-party's accident at school immediately after being treated by the Seoul Medical Center, and the non-party was aware of the fact that the accident was caused by the non-party's accident.

The court below rejected the defendant's assertion that the accident of this case does not constitute a school safety accident, and judged that the defendant is obligated to pay bereaved family benefits and funeral expenses to the plaintiffs under the School Safety Accident Compensation Act, is somewhat inappropriate in its reasoning. However, it is just as a result, and it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on school safety accident, bereaved family benefits, funeral expenses, etc. under the School Safety Accident Compensation Act.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

The Act on the Compensation for School Safety in order to prevent school safety accidents and to provide for matters necessary for the implementation of a project to provide a mutual aid program for school safety accidents in order to promptly and appropriately compensate for the damages suffered by students, school employees, and participants in educational activities, shall be deemed to have the legislative purport of protecting the lives and bodies of students, school employees, etc. from school safety accidents by paying the mutual aid benefits to the beneficiaries of the students, school employees, etc., without asking the superintendent of education, school principals, etc., whether they are responsible for the occurrence of the school safety accidents. In the event of the school safety accidents, it shall not be deemed that the principle of comparative negligence or comparative negligence shall not apply to the liability for the payment of benefits under the Act on the Compensation for School Safety in the light of the legislative purpose and purport of the above legislation. Therefore, the mutual aid system under the Act on the Compensation for School Safety in the light of social security in terms of the nature of directly compensating the damages suffered by the beneficiaries due to the school safety accidents, and thus, it shall not apply to the tort compensation system and its purport or purpose.

Therefore, in full view of the legislative purport and basic ideology of the School Safety Accident Compensation Act, and the nature of the deduction benefits, where the king has contributed to the expansion of damages in civil damage compensation cases, the legal principles that consider the comparative negligence-off doctrine by applying the legal principles cannot be deemed as being applied to the deduction benefits under the School Safety Accident Compensation Act, in a case where the king has set the amount of damages in the civil damage compensation cases.

According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the reasoning of the first instance judgment cited by the lower court, the lower court determined that the Plaintiffs’ claim for mutual aid benefits, which was damaged by school safety accidents, could not be considered by applying the doctrine of comparative negligence, by applying the comparative negligence doctrine to the Plaintiffs’ claim for mutual aid benefits.

In light of the above legal principles, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the calculation of deduction benefits under the School Safety Accident Compensation Act, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are 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 on the bench.

Justices Min Il-young (Presiding Justice)