In a case where Gap, while attending high school, was unable to adapt to school life due to the collective bullying of Eul et al., and even thereafter, he suffered psychological pain, such as fear of personal relations and failure to adapt to group life, the case holding that the local government's liability for damages was recognized for the establishment and operation of Eul et al. and parents, such as Eul et al., and the school.

In a case where: (a) Party B et al. was diagnosed to suffer psychological pain due to the bullying of Party B et al. during high school school attendance; (b) Party B et al. was unable to adapt to school life due to the bullying of Party B et al.; (c) Party B et al. suffered emotional impulses to the degree that Party B et al. could not attend school; (d) Party B et al. was responsible for compensating Party B et al. for damages suffered from Party B et al. due to the bullying of Party B et al.’s failure to provide education, protection, and supervision to prevent other students from bullying; and (e) Party B et al. was not responsible for compensating Party B et al. for damages due to the lack of bullying’s ability to protect or supervise the school at the time of school’s bullying; and (e) Party B et al. did not have a serious social problem due to the lack of bullying and supervision of Party B et al. at the time of school’s bullying.

Articles 750, 753, 755, 760 of the Civil Act, Article 2(1) of the State Compensation Act

Plaintiff 1 and one other (Attorney Song-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and 12 others (Attorney Yellow-chul, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

May 1, 2015

1. The remainder of the Defendants except Defendant 12 are jointly engaged in:

A. As to KRW 164,172,260 and KRW 100,00 among them, 5% per annum from September 24, 2013 to July 3, 2015; and 20% per annum from the following day to the date of complete payment;

B. 5% per annum from September 24, 2013 to July 3, 2015 and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment with respect to Plaintiff 2’s KRW 2,00,000 and its related amount

each share of the money shall be paid.

2. The plaintiffs' claims against defendant 12 and the remaining claims against the defendants except defendant 12 are dismissed, respectively.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the Plaintiffs and Defendant 12 is borne by the Plaintiffs, and 1/2 of the part arising between the Plaintiffs and Defendant 12, and the remainder is borne by the Defendants, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The Defendants shall pay to each of the Plaintiffs 1 309,507,446 won, 10,000 won to Plaintiff 2, and 20% interest per annum from the day following the day of service of the copy of the instant complaint to the day of full payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The plaintiff 1 (the plaintiff 1 November 1994) was a student who was enrolled in the first and fifth classes of ○○ High School from March 2, 2010 to August 25, 2010, and the plaintiff 2 was the plaintiff 1's mother.

B. At the time of 2010, Defendants 1, 4, 7, and 10 (hereinafter “Defendant students”) were students of the same class who attended the Plaintiff 1 and the first grade 5 of ○○ High School. Defendants 2 and 3 were the parents of Defendant 1, Defendant 5, and Defendant 6 were the parents of Defendant 4, Defendant 8, and Defendant 9, the parents of Defendant 7, and Defendant 11 were the parents of Defendant 10. At the time of 2010, Defendant students were dependent solely on their respective parents (hereinafter “Defendant parents”) in economic terms, and were subject to protection and supervision.

C. Defendant Incheon Metropolitan City is a local government that establishes and operates ○○ High School, and Defendant 12, a public educational official belonging thereto, was a teacher of Plaintiff 1 and Defendant students in the first and fifth grade of ○○ High School at the time of 2010.

D. The Defendant students collectively bullying Plaintiff 1 from April 2, 2010 to July 20, 2010, as follows (hereinafter “the instant bullying”).

On April 5, 2010, Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 were 0: On the 10th 6th marbling, Defendant 1 and Defendant 1 were 0: On the 1st 0th marbling, Defendant 1 and Defendant 1 were 0-marbing Plaintiff 1’s face at the 0th marbing of 0, 10-marcing of 6: on May 26, 201, Plaintiff 1 and Defendant 2 were 0-marcing of 10-marcing of 6: on the 10th marcing of 0-marcing of 6: on the 10th marcing of 10-marcing of 6: on the 10th marcing of 10-marcing of 6: on the 10th marcing of 10-marc.

E. On August 25, 2010, Plaintiff 1 was unable to adapt to school life due to the collective harassment of Defendant students, and was voluntarily retired from ○○○ High School on August 25, 2010. Plaintiff 1 suffered psychological pain, such as: (a) she experienced fear in personal relations and was unable to adapt to the group life; (b) on June 28, 2012, Plaintiff 1 was diagnosed with a leopic disease whose detailed details were unknown in ○○ Hospital located in Incheon Bupyeong-gu, Incheon.

F. The plaintiff 1 had neither indicated any symptoms of mental illness nor received treatment for mental illness before the collective harassment of the defendant student. The non-party 2 and the plaintiff 2, who is the parent of the plaintiff 1, did not specifically receive treatment for mental illness.

G. Defendant students sent the instant collective harassment case to the Incheon District Court. On June 5, 2013, the Incheon District Court rendered a decision on protective disposition against Defendant 1 (2013.837) due to coercion, etc. on July 3, 2013 (2013.8.36), on June 5, 2013, the decision on protective disposition against Defendant 4 (2013.8.36), on June 5, 2013, the decision on protective disposition (2013.8.39), and on June 5, 2013, the decision on protective disposition (2013.8.838) against Defendant 10 as a crime of insult, respectively, was rendered on June 5, 2013.

아. 이 법원의 ◇◇대학교 ☆병원에 대한 원고 1의 신체감정촉탁 결과의 요지는 다음과 같다.

The symptoms of Plaintiff 1, contained in the main text, present symptoms of Plaintiff 1, such as the decline in the verification of the real name of objective diagnosis, accident disorder, scopic disorder, recognition control disorder, emotional disorder, social degradation, etc., are observed. It is observed that the opinion above the function of cerebral typhism (popic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic sc).

[인정 근거] 다툼 없는 사실, 갑 1 내지 7, 9 내지 13, 16 내지 18호증(가지번호 포함, 이하 같다), 을파 제5호증의 각 기재, 이 법원의 ◇◇대학교 ☆병원에 대한 신체감정촉탁 결과, 변론 전체의 취지

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Liability for damages of Defendant students

In light of the above facts and the following circumstances that can be recognized by the above evidence, i.e., ① Plaintiff 1 retired from the ○○○ High School without checking the collective harassment force of Defendant students; ② it is evident that the collective harassment force of Defendant 1 gave the Plaintiff 1 any more mental impulse, ② it was impossible to discover the mental symptoms with Plaintiff 1 before Defendant 1’s collective harassment force; ③ Plaintiff 1’s family member is not specially treated as a genetic symptoms because he did not receive treatment for mental illness; ④ it is difficult to view Plaintiff 1’s emotional disease as a genetic symptoms; ④ in addition to Defendant students’ collective harassment force, it is reasonable to view that there is a proximate causal link between Defendant 1’s collective harassment force and Plaintiff 1’s on-site injury.

Therefore, the defendant students, who were 15 years old at the time of the collective harassment of this case, were responsible for the damages suffered by the plaintiffs as joint tortfeasors.

B. Defendant parents' liability for damages

In cases where a minor is held liable for tort on his/her own due to the ability to perform his/her responsibility, if there is a proximate causal relation with the violation of the duty of the supervisor, the supervisor is liable for damages as a general tort (see Supreme Court Decision 93Da60588 delivered on August 23, 1994, etc.).

As seen earlier, around 2010, Defendant students were the first-year students in the high school of 15 years old and under protection and supervision with their parents, living together with their parents, and solely dependent on economic aspects. At the time, collective harassment in the school became a social problem, Defendant parents have a duty to educate, protect, and supervise the Defendant students who lack different capacity so that they do not commit another or bullying. Nevertheless, Defendant parents neglected the above duty to protect and supervise the Defendant students, and thus, there is a proximate causal relation between Defendant parents’ violation of the duty to supervise and the Plaintiffs’ damages. Accordingly, Defendant parents are liable for compensating the Plaintiffs for the damages incurred by the Plaintiffs due to the collective harassment in this case as joint tortfeasor.

C. Defendant Incheon Metropolitan City’s liability for damages

1) The principal of a school or a teacher established and operated by a local government is obligated to protect and supervise students on behalf of a legal supervisor, such as a person with parental authority, in cases where an accident is anticipated to normally occur in the educational activities in a school and living relationship closely indivisible thereto, or where predictability exists in the specific danger of an accident. The predictability is determined by taking into account the time and place of educational activities, the offender’s ability to distinguish, the offender’s character and conduct, the offender’s relation between the perpetrator and the victim, and other various circumstances. If predictability exists, the principal of a school or teacher shall be liable for the violation of the duty to protect and supervise (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da24318, Apr. 26, 2007).

Comprehensively taking account of the aforementioned evidence, evidence and evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and evidence Nos. 6-3, the entire purport of the argument is as follows: ① collective harassment by the Defendant students occurred at a place related to the education of ○○○ High School, such as classrooms or school trips; ② continued repeated for a period of about four months from April 2, 2010 to July 20, 2010; ③ Defendant 12 recognized that the school violence occurred without Plaintiff 1’s snow with the surrounding people on the first day of the call with the Plaintiff 1, and became a serious social problem at the time of the occurrence of the instant collective harassment; and ④ Defendant 12 recognized the fact that school violence occurred as a serious social problem.

Examining the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, it is reasonable to view that Defendant 12 violated Defendant 12’s duty to protect and supervise Plaintiff 1 and Defendant students, since it was predicted that students who were under the age of about 15 could assault or bullying but did not have any sexual intercourse at the time when school violence emerged as a serious social problem. In addition, Defendant 12 violated the duty to protect and supervise Plaintiff 1 and Defendant students.

Therefore, the defendant Incheon Metropolitan City shall be liable for the violation of the duty to protect and supervise the defendant 12, a teacher, unless there are special circumstances.

2) As to this, Defendant Incheon Metropolitan City, and Defendant 12, etc., have fulfilled their duty to protect and supervise Plaintiff 1 and Defendant students, they claim that Defendant Incheon Metropolitan City is not liable for damages.

According to the statement of evidence Nos. 1 through 4 and 7, ① Defendant 12 asked Nonparty 3 and Nonparty 4 of the team leader as of January 2010 as of May 1, 2010 whether there was violence or bullying within a class. Nonparty 3 and Nonparty 4 asked Nonparty 12 to the effect that the school violence was directly committed or the school violence was not committed. ② Defendant 12 provided education that students should immediately report the school violence; ③ Nonparty 5 conducted school violence surveys on March 29, 2010 for students within the school; and each resolution passed by the school violence prevention education and the school violence prevention conference on May 1, 2010 for students.

However, in full view of the above survey and education’s results were taken as a result, and there is no proof of the defendant Incheon Metropolitan City’s positive function from a substantive point of view, and in addition to these circumstances, the collective harassment of the defendant students of this case was continuously repeated for a long period of about four months until the plaintiff 1 withdraws from the school, and half of the plaintiff 1 was a teacher who assaults or commits harassment of the plaintiff 1 of an resistant nature, which is an predicted situation. Therefore, if the person responsible for protection and supervision actually performs the duty of protection and supervision, it seems that the prevention and detection of the collective harassment of the defendant of this case could be sufficiently prevented and discovered if the person responsible for protection and supervision actually performs the duty of protection and supervision, it is deemed that the school violence prevention education, etc. of the defendant 12 and the principal, non-party 5, such as the facts of paragraphs (1) through (3) above, was done extremely formally, and it is difficult to deem that the duty of protection and supervision was actually performed. Therefore, the above assertion by the defendant Incheon Metropolitan City is without merit.

Therefore, pursuant to Article 2(1) of the State Compensation Act, Defendant Incheon Metropolitan City is liable for damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the violation of the above duty of protection and supervision by Defendant 12 who is a public official belonging thereto.

D. Whether Defendant 12 is liable for damages

In cases where a public official causes damage to another person by a tort while performing his/her duties, not only the State or a local government is liable to compensate for damage caused by a tort, but also the public official is not liable to compensate for damage caused by a tort if there is a progress or gross negligence. In this context, the gross negligence of a public official means a situation in which the public official could have easily predicted the consequences of illegal and harmful acts, even if he/she did not pay considerable attention to the extent that it is ordinarily required, and it means a situation in which the public official lacks significant attention near the same intention (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Da34521, Sept. 8, 2011, etc.).

Although it cannot be denied that Defendant 12 violated the duty to protect and supervise Plaintiff 1 and Defendant 12, Defendant 12 cannot be viewed as having violated the duty to protect and supervise Plaintiff 1 and Defendant 12, Defendant 12 made efforts to prevent collective harassment among anti-humans by asking questions as to whether school violence has occurred to anti-humans around 2010 or by providing anti-humans with education to prevent school violence during religious hours, etc. ② Plaintiff 1 did not talk with Defendant 12, who is a school teacher, but was given an opportunity for counseling with Defendant 12, but did not talk about the fact that Plaintiff 1 was taking advantage of the following: (a) Defendant 12’s negligence did not constitute a situation where Defendant 12’s negligence, who neglected the collective harassment of this case by Defendant 12, did not lack of a relatively significant attention; (b) Defendant 12’s negligence on the level of the past room.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim for damages against the defendant 12 is without merit.

E. Limitation of liability

As seen above, the remaining Defendants except the Defendant 12, the Defendant students, parents, and the Defendant Incheon Metropolitan City, the local government, are liable for damages. However, in light of the following: (i) if Plaintiff 1 was informed and actively coped with Plaintiff 1’s collective harassment from Defendant 1, the Defendant students would not continue to have the harassment against Plaintiff 1; and (ii) the student register of Plaintiff 1’s middle school states that “I are unable to come well with the Defendant 1 because the horse is less than the end, and it is obvious that she was sexually and clearly in her territory,” it is reasonable for Plaintiff 2 to take necessary measures by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances, including Plaintiff 1’s daily life and psychological status, etc., despite having a duty to protect Plaintiff 1’s obligation to protect, taking into account the fact that Plaintiff 1 was unable to take necessary measures by understanding the fact that Plaintiff 1 was unable to take necessary measures by taking account of the fact that Plaintiff 1 was unable to have been subject to the instant collective harassment.

3. Scope of damages.

A. The plaintiff 1's actual income

The Plaintiff 1’s lost income loss is KRW 162,265,796 (hereinafter the same shall apply) calculated at the end of July 20, 2010, based on the facts and assessment of the facts found in paragraph 1 below, pursuant to the Hofman Calculation Act, which deducts interim interest calculated at the rate of 5/12 per month as follows 2) from a single interest, pursuant to which the interim interest is calculated at the rate of 5/12 per annum as follows:

1) Facts and evaluation of recognition

A) Gender: Male;

Date of birth: November 11, 1994

On July 20, 2010, the date of termination of the tort of this case: 15 years of age and 8 months;

Name of rental: 63.9

(B) Operation period: from November 11, 2015 to November 10, 205, which is expected to complete the military service of two years, and is expected to be completed, until November 10, 2054, before full 60 years of age.

(c) Actual income: 86,686 won per day (the unit price of daily wages for urban workers claimed by the Plaintiff);

(d)the ratio of residual disability and labor disability;

(1) Ethy disability: Synive disease.

(2) Ratio of loss of labor ability: 38% (Article 8-2) (Article 8-2) of the two parts, brain, and scale items on the Maerbrid disability assessment table.

[인정 근거] 다툼 없는 사실, 갑 제1, 3, 6, 10, 12호증의 각 기재, 이 법원의 ◇◇대학교 ☆병원에 대한 신체감정촉탁 결과, 이 법원에 현저한 사실, 변론 전체의 취지

2) Calculation: 162,265,796

Daily income for the period of November 11, 2015, 201 1 m1 m2 m2 m1-2 applicable m1-2 for the monthly income loss rate of m1 m6,686 221,907,092 038.0% 531.7478 635.85.87 468 468 23.9091 162,265,796

(b) Medical expenses;

1) Fees: 5,407,147 won;

본문내 포함된 표 진료기관 일시 진료구분 치료비(원) □□□병원 2012. 6. 9.-12. 20. 외래 4회 40,300 2013. 1. 3.-12. 17. 외래 8회 104,300 2012. 6. 28.-7. 4. 입원 102,110 2013. 1. 22.-2. 22. 입원 526,450 해당 기관 치료비 총계: 773,160 ▽▽▽대학교 ◎◎◎◎병원 2013. 12. 17. 외래 13,620 2014. 1. 17. 20,725 2014. 1. 24. 19,958 2014. 2. 7. 39,723 2014. 3. 7. 37,869 2014. 4. 4. 49,180 2014. 5. 2. 30,780 2014. 5. 30. 30,780 2014. 7. 18. 35,561 2014. 7. 30. 3,000 2014. 8. 20. 34,411 2014. 8. 25. 42,800 2014. 9. 29. 47,421 2014. 1. 11. 입원 1,786,270 2014. 1. 16. 2014. 1. 17. 2014. 1. 21. 해당 기관 치료비 총계: 2,192,098 ◇◇대학교 ☆병원 2014. 7. 10. 외래 1,305,039 ◁◁◁◁◁병원 2014. 3. 10.-3. 14. 입원 43,350 2014. 3. 17.-3. 31. 79,530 2014. 4. 1.-4. 11. 72,410 2014. 4. 14.-4. 25. 80,030 2014. 4. 28.-4. 30. 24,460 2014. 5. 1.-5. 9. 47,430 2014. 5. 12.-5. 23. 80,030 2014. 5. 26.-5. 30. 40,530 2014. 6. 2.-6. 5. 25,270 2014. 6. 9.-6. 20. 80,030 2014. 6. 23.-6. 30. 48,960 2014. 7. 1.-7. 4. 32,110 2014. 7. 7.-7. 18. 70,570 2014. 7. 22.-7. 31. 61,310 2014. 8. 1.-8. 14. 77,830 2014. 8. 18.-8. 26. 57,690 2014. 9. 1.-9. 12. 64,000 72,800 2014. 9. 16.-9. 26. 2014. 9. 29.-9. 30. 18,330 2014. 10. 1.-10. 10. 60,180 해당 기관 치료비 총계: 1,136,850 기왕 치료비 총계: 5,407,147

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap evidence No. 11

2) Future treatment costs

A) Necessary treatment: Pharmacologic treatment and support mental treatment, including psychotropic drugs, are expected to require 2,985,800 won each year.

B) Treatment period: In light of the characteristics of the on-site disease, it is difficult to keep the treatment for a prolonged period of time in the future, as well as to limit the treatment period, it is deemed necessary to provide treatment by the end of life expectancy.

[인정 근거] 이 법원의 ◇◇대학교 ☆병원에 대한 신체감정촉탁 결과, 변론 전체의 취지

C) Calculation: From October 11, 2014 to May 28, 2074, the date immediately following the last disbursement date of the treatment costs, KRW 2,985,800 annually shall be deemed to have been disbursed from October 28, 2014, and shall be deemed to have been paid from May 28, 207, in accordance with the Hofman accounting method that deducts the interim interest calculated at the rate of 5% per annum from the simple interest, the future treatment costs shall be 59,716,000 (=2,985,800) x 20 excessive compensation.

is the case.

C. Limitation on liability

1) Liability ratio of the Defendants: 70%

2) Calculation: 159,172,260 won = (the actual income of KRW 162,265,796 + the treatment expenses of KRW 5,407,147 + future treatment expenses of KRW 59,716,00) x 0.7)

(d) Condolence money;

1) Grounds: Details and degree of the harassment in this case, contents and degree of disability of Plaintiff 1, age of Plaintiff 1 and Defendant students at the time of the harassment in this case, circumstances after the harassment in this case, degree of negligence of Plaintiffs, and other various circumstances shown in the arguments in this case.

(ii) the amount determined;

① Plaintiff 1: 5,000,000 won

② Plaintiff 2: 2,000,000 won

E. Sub-committee

Therefore, the remainder of the Defendants except Defendant 12 are jointly and severally liable to Plaintiff 1 for KRW 164,172,260 (i.e., KRW 159,172,260 + KRW 5,000 + KRW 100,000) and for KRW 100,00,00,00, which are the date following the date of final delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case, clearly from September 24, 2013 to the date following the date of final delivery of the copy of the petition of this case, and from October 23, 2014 to July 3, 2015, which is the date of each of these rulings, KRW 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act, and KRW 20% per annum as to the promotion of litigation from the next day to the date of full payment, KRW 20,000,00 per annum as stated in the Civil Act, and KRW 20,000 per annum as to the following day of this case.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, since the plaintiffs' claims against the remaining defendants except defendant 12 are justified within the above scope of recognition, they shall be accepted respectively, and the remaining claims shall be dismissed as they are without merit. The plaintiffs' claims against defendant 12 are dismissed as they are without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Dong-jin (Presiding Judge) Kim U.S.-ho