[1] Whether a founder and operator of a private teaching institute or an operator of a private teaching institute in charge of private education has the duty to protect and supervise students of the relevant private teaching institute like teachers in charge of public education (affirmative)

[2] The scope of the duty of a kindergarten or school teacher to protect and supervise a private teaching institute, and whether such a legal principle applies likewise to a founder and operator of a private teaching institute and a teaching instructor (affirmative)

[3] The case recognizing a violation of the duty to protect and supervise the operator of a private teaching institute in a case where the student who was the first grade of an elementary school went out of the private teaching institute due to traffic accident and died of a traffic accident

[1] The head, principal, and teacher of a kindergarten or a school is obligated to protect and supervise kindergarten students and students who receive education from them in accordance with relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Framework Act on Education on behalf of legal supervisors, such as persons with parental authority. However, educational activities for kindergarten students and students are not conducted only at a kindergarten or school. In particular, in our educational reality, private education is widely provided in a private teaching institute or a teaching school established and operated in accordance with the Act on the Establishment and Operation of Private Teaching Institutes and Extracurricular Lessons in order to supplement and teach school education or to educate their special skills, skills, and arts. Such private education plays an important role in the school. Thus, it is reasonable to deem that a founder and operator of a private teaching institute or an operator of a teaching institute in charge of private education, like teachers in charge of public education, has the duty to protect and supervise students who take lessons from the relevant private teaching institute.

[2] The scope of the duty to protect and supervise kindergarten students or school teachers shall be limited to educational activities in a kindergarten or in a school and their close and poor relationship, not to the overall living relationship of kindergarten students or students, but to the living relationship that is closely related to such activities in a school. In addition, if a student is in an accident due to neglecting the duty to protect and supervise students, the possibility of such accident should be determined by considering the student’s age, social experience, judgment ability, and all other circumstances. Such legal principles do not differ with the case of the founder and operator of a private teaching institute and the operator of a private teaching institute. Accordingly, the scope of the living relationship where the kindergarten students or students who are under the ability to protect and supervise the students or students who are under the ability to care due to their age, or who are under the ability to protect and supervise students in a low school level, and the possibility of the occurrence of the accident should be recognized more broadly. In particular, where a method of transporting the students in a low-school school with social experience and judgment ability, such kindergarten, school operator, school, or teacher, etc., must be deemed to have completed the duty to protect students in advance.

[3] The case recognizing the violation of the duty to protect and supervise the operator of a private teaching institute in a case where the first grade student of an elementary school went out of the private teaching institute due to traffic accident and died of a traffic accident

[1] Articles 2 and 750 of the Civil Act, Article 12(1) of the Framework Act on Education, Article 4 of the Act on the Establishment and Operation of Private Teaching Institutes and Extracurricular Lessons / [2] Article 750 of the Civil Act, Article 12(1) of the Framework Act on Education, Article 4 of the Act on the Establishment and Operation of Private Teaching Institutes and Extracurricular Lessons / [3] Article 750 of the Civil Act, Article 12(1) of the Framework Act on Education, Article 4 of the Act on the Establishment and Operation of Private Teaching Institutes and Extracurricular Lessons

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 96Da19833 delivered on August 23, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 2853), Supreme Court Decision 2002Da10585, 10592 delivered on May 10, 2002 (Gong2002Ha, 1377)

Plaintiff 1 and two others (Seoul General Law Firm, Attorney Park Young-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Law Firm Hyeong, Attorneys Park Do-hee et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2006Na86162 decided May 17, 2007

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Kindergarten principals, principals, and teachers are obligated to protect and supervise kindergarten students and students who receive education from them pursuant to relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Framework Act on Education, on behalf of persons with parental authority, etc. (see Supreme Court Decisions 96Da19833, Aug. 23, 1996; 2002Da10585, May 10, 2002, etc.).

However, educational activities for kindergarten students or students are not conducted only at kindergartens or schools, and in particular, our educational reality is widely provided by private teaching institutes or teaching schools established and operated in accordance with the Act on the Establishment and Operation of Private Teaching Institutes and Extracurricular Lessons, and such private education plays an important role in teaching knowledge, techniques, and arts for the supplementation and operation of school education or for special skills and aptitude education. It is reasonable to deem that the founder and operator of a private teaching institute or the operator of a teaching school in charge of private education in the above form of private education, like teachers in charge of public education, has the duty to protect and supervise students who take lessons from the private teaching institute. Article 12(1) of the Framework Act on Education provides that “Basic human rights for students including students shall be respected and protected in the process of school education or social education,” and declares the duty to protect students by stipulating that “the founder and operator of a private teaching institute or the operator of a private teaching institute under the contract for the establishment and operation of a private teaching institute and measures for safety of private teaching schools shall be taken by taking account of the other party’s safety measures such as the establishment and operation and operation of the school.”

Of course, the scope of the duty to protect and supervise kindergarten students or school teachers shall be limited to life relationships which are closely related to educational activities in kindergarten and school, not to the overall living relationship of kindergarten students or students, and only where it is anticipated that an accident may occur even if a student is involved in an accident due to neglecting the duty to protect and supervise such students, the possibility of such accident shall be determined by taking into account the student’s age, social experience, judgment ability, and all other circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2009Du1868, Feb. 1, 2009). Such legal principle applies to the case of the founder and operator of a private teaching institute and the teaching school, and it is not different from the case of the founder and operator of a private teaching institute or the teaching school, which generally has the ability to protect and supervise the students of a kindergarten or the students of a low school, and it shall be recognized that the scope of life relationship with the operator of a private teaching institute or the educational employee of a private teaching institute, other than those of other school students, should be determined in a safe relationship between the operator and the educational employee.

2. According to the facts duly admitted by the judgment of the court of first instance as cited by the evidence of employment, and the records of this case, the deceased non-party (the male life of August 21, 1998; hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") was a first-year student in the Dong-si Elementary School at the time of July 1, 2005 in which the traffic accident of this case occurred, and the defendant is infinite, and the "(title omitted)" established and operated by the teaching school for the Pianian and the entrance school was infinite and was infinite by every week from every month to the Pianian, the deceased was infinite, and was infinite and has been infinite in the above 6th day before entering the school, and he was infinite and has been infinite to the above 5th day after he was infinite school, and the 5th day after the school was infinite school and the 5th day after his entrance school was infinite school.

In light of the aforementioned facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the Deceased at the time of the instant traffic accident, who was the first-year student of an elementary school who was between 6 and 10 months old, was seriously lacking in judgment ability and separation ability, and was unable to have engaged in social life by getting out of his parent’s body, and continued to be attending the school operated by the Defendant and going out of the school. Furthermore, the above facts include not only the specific teaching activities conducted within the above private teaching institute but also the daily life relationship between the deceased and their parents after getting out of the school and getting out of the school and going out of the school in order to safely return to the school by getting out of the school. Thus, the Defendant, who is the operator of the private teaching institute, has the duty to protect and supervise the Deceased’s living relationship with the private teaching institute as a whole. Furthermore, the Defendant’s duty to protect and supervise the deceased and the deceased, without permission, should be seen as including a thorough external safety measure outside of the school during which the deceased took out the school.

Nevertheless, the lower court held otherwise, that “it is difficult to view the Defendant to have the duty to specifically and directly protect and supervise the students of the first-class elementary school who are attending the said private teaching institute by predicting that they would face the same traffic accident as in this case at the time of leaving the private teaching institute at its own discretion and preventing them from occurring.” As such, half of the students of the first-class elementary school who are attending the said private teaching institute are attending the school on the front side of the private teaching institute. The students of the above school have moved to the lecture for another subject after the completion of a certain course of study, and there was no sanctions against the students of the above private teaching institute and the number of the students of the school and the number of the instructors of the school, the structure of the private teaching institute building, and the method of imposing sanctions against them even if the students fail to comply with the instructions on the part of the private teaching institute. In so doing, the Defendant appears to have failed to control the students who are going against the private teaching institute’s employees or instructors by posting them on the entrance, and the background leading leading to the instant accident.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which dismissed all the plaintiffs' claims for damages against the defendant, who are the bereaved family members of the deceased, by denying the defendant's duty to protect and supervise the deceased, based on the above points, is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to the duty to protect and supervise the students of the private teaching institute and the teaching instructor, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

3. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Hwang-sik (Presiding Justice)