Plaintiff 1 and one other (Attorney Kang Chang-ho, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and five others (Law Firm Dasan et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

August 31, 2012

Suwon District Court Decision 2010Ra16122 Decided November 24, 2011

1. The plaintiffs' appeals and the claims added in the trial are all dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. Defendants 1, 2, 3, and Gyeonggi-do shall pay to each of the plaintiffs 1 80,000,000 won, Defendant 5, and Defendant 6 shall pay to each of the plaintiffs 2 20,000 won with 20% interest per annum from the day following the day of service of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of full payment (the plaintiff added from the trial to the claim against the defendant 6).

1. Quotation of the first instance judgment

The reasoning of the court's reasoning concerning this case is as follows: (a) part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance No. 6, No. 12 of the first instance, "Defendant 5 as an assistant principal," and part of " June 9, 2010" of the first instance No. 9 of the 11 as " June 11, 2010," respectively, shall be dismissed as follows: (b) evidence added to the court of first instance and lack to recognize the defendants' responsibility for tort or breach of management and supervision obligations; and (c) evidence submitted in the court of first instance and evidence No. 18 through No. 27 of the 18 of the 27 of the 2010, which are insufficient to recognize the defendants' responsibility for tort or breach of management and supervision obligations; (d) Plaintiff 2 of the first instance court shall be dismissed all of the results of the first instance court's examination; and (e)

2. Additional matters to be determined;

The Plaintiffs asserted that Defendant 6 forced the Plaintiff’s transfer of the ○ Elementary School’s parents conference as the parent representative on June 11, 2010 and deprived and infringed the Plaintiffs’ free decision-making right.

In this regard, it is difficult to acknowledge the fact that Defendant 6 delivered the opinion of the parents demanding the transfer of Plaintiff 1 on behalf of the parents at the above parents' meeting. However, the fact that Defendant 6 forced the plaintiffs to transfer beyond this, and the fact that the plaintiffs violated the plaintiffs' decision-making right is not sufficient to acknowledge it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, considering the overall purport of the arguments in the statement No. 17, it can be acknowledged that, at the above time, Plaintiff 2 stated that the communication of the opinion by Defendant 6 was "the plaintiff 1 was dead to transfer the plaintiff 1 on several occasions." In light of this, it is reasonable to deem that the plaintiff 1 transferred the opinion by free will of the plaintiffs.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit, which is premised on the infringement of decision making right.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the plaintiffs' claims in this case are dismissed without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance that dismissed the plaintiffs' claims for damages except for the part that infringed the right to decision-making, is justified with this conclusion. Accordingly, all of the plaintiffs' appeals and the claims for damages arising from the infringement of the right to decision-making added in the trial are dismissed without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition

Judges Kim Young-jin (Presiding Judge) Lee Young-young