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

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

April 12, 2007

Chuncheon District Court Decision 2005Kadan11554 Decided August 23, 2006

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked. The defendant shall pay to the co-defendants of the court of first instance, Kim Il-il, and plaintiffs 1, 43,264,589 (the "43,264,581 won" stated in the purport of the appeal and the purport of the appeal in the complaint appears to be a clerical error). The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 2 40,264,589 won, five million won per annum from July 11, 2005 to the date of the pronouncement of the judgment of the first court, and the amount calculated at the rate of 5% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment to the date of full payment.

1. Basic facts

The court's explanation on this part is the same as the part of Paragraph 1 of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, so this part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is cited.

2. Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

At the time of the instant accident, the Deceased was a first-year student of an elementary school with six years old and ten months old, and the judgment ability and separation of ability were not distinguished. The front side of the said (title omitted) driving school is not divided into India and roadways, and there was a risk of traffic accident in the event a large number of students move into the said road without having been installed with a road crossing and signal, and a large number of vehicles pass through without having been divided, and thus, it was anticipated that the occurrence of the traffic accident was anticipated. Therefore, the Defendant did not take all such measures despite the fact that the Defendant did not have taken measures, such as preventing those students who want to go out of the driving school at the time of leaving the driving school and leaving the lecture room immediately before the instant accident. In light of the circumstances such as the Defendant, as the operator of the driving school immediately before the instant accident, did not stop the Deceased even though the Deceased did not appear in the instruction room, the Defendant neglected his duty to protect and supervise the Deceased due to such accident.

3. Determination

First, in relation to the plaintiffs' assertion that the deceased did not remove them despite the defendant's appearance in the lecture room as well as the defendant's appearance in the lecture room, the testimony of the non-party 1 of the first instance witness is insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

In addition, the majority of the students of the (name omitted) school operated by the Defendant 10th class students of the (10th class students of the (10th class students) of the said elementary school, even if the accident occurred in front of the said school (the testimony of Nonparty 2 by the witness of the first instance court), the students of the said school took part in the lecture room after the completion of one subject (the testimony of Nonparty 2) and moved to the lecture room of the other subject (the decedent 2). The Deceased appears to have a certain degree of ability to judge and decide, and it is difficult to view that the above students of the said school and the number of instructors of the said school and the building of the private teaching institute, and the structure of the said school, even if the students of the said school do not follow the instruction on the part of the private teaching institute, it is difficult to view that the Defendant had a duty to protect the Deceased to protect the Deceased by arbitrarily taking part in the school or the entrance and supervision of the said school at his own time on the premise that it was difficult for the Defendant to do so.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the claim of this case against the defendant is dismissed in its entirety as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed in its entirety as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Dong-dae (Presiding Judge)