(영문) 부산고등법원 2019.6.5. 선고 2018나54753 판결

A. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 452,054,798 won and 377,450,692 won per annum from August 21, 2014 to April 28, 2016; 15% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment; 5% per annum from August 21, 2014 to June 5, 2019 to the date of full payment; 15% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment; 70,604,106 won per annum from May 30 to June 5, 2017 to the date of full payment; and 5% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment to the date of full payment; and 15% per annum from the day to June 5, 2019 to the date of full payment.

B. The plaintiff's remaining claims against the defendant are dismissed.

2. Of the total litigation costs, 65% is borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder is borne by the Defendant, respectively.

3. The above paragraph 1(a) may be provisionally executed.

Purport of claim and appeal

1. Purport of claim

With respect to KRW 1,263,82,596 and KRW 449,269,078 among the Plaintiff, the Defendant shall pay 5% per annum from September 6, 2012 to the service date of a copy of the application for modification of the claim and the cause of the claim as of June 18, 2015; KRW 20% per annum from the next day to September 30, 2015; KRW 15% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment; KRW 814,53,518 per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment; and KRW 814,53,518 per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment (the Plaintiff reduced the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant at the trial before remand).

2. Purport of appeal

A. The plaintiff

The judgment of the first instance is modified as follows. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount stated in the purport of the claim.

B. Defendant

The part against the defendant among the part against the plaintiff in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim against the defendant corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. Status of the parties

1) At the time of 2012, the Plaintiff is a student who was enrolled in the sixth grade of G Elementary School located in Ulsan-gun F in Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-do.

2) Under Article 15 of the Act on the Prevention of and Compensation for School Safety Accidents (hereinafter referred to as the “School Safety Act”), the Defendant is a corporation established to conduct a school safety mutual aid project to prevent school safety accidents and to increase funds, and is an operator of the school safety mutual aid project to which the G elementary school head has joined.

B. The Plaintiff’s fall accident

1) On September 6, 2012, at around 13:54, the Plaintiff completed a natural science class of 5 p.m., and agreed with H, I, J, and K as well as with H, I, J, and K, that the Plaintiff lost Handphones to K during the 6th regular sports class, and that K moved first to H, leaving a bank and finding a Handphone.

2) immediately after that, in order to conceal K’s bags, the Plaintiff left the door above the outer string of the second floor of the outdoor stairs (hereinafter “instant facilities”).

3) On the same day, at around 14:00, the Plaintiff moved to a rail of outdoor stairs in order to find a bridge of K, and even H and J, despite the met of H and J, he may have been in danger of doing so. The instant structure was cut down on the cement floor as the instant structure was damaged due to the Plaintiff’s scambling and destruction. On the same day, around 14:07, around 119 emergency squad arrived and transferred the Plaintiff to the hospital (hereinafter “the Plaintiff’s crash accident”).

C. The treatment process for the plaintiff and the plaintiff's disability, etc.

1) On September 6, 2012, the Plaintiff conducted the CT inspection at a T Hospital on September 14:15, 2012, and was diagnosed as brain malphy, brain cerebralopy, and cerebralopy, and immediately received surgery, such as malphy, malphy, and cerebralopy.

2) At around 18:30 on the same day, the Plaintiff was hospitalized in the Ma Hospitals and received re-patient surgery. On September 12, 2012, the Plaintiff was discharged on December 14, 2012 after undergoing surgery, such as cerebral dysium surgery, etc. on November 15, 2012, and thereafter received re-patient treatment from the Ma Hospital dysium during the period from January 20, 2013 to December 2, 2013.

3) After that, the Plaintiff received a decision from the head of Ulsan Metropolitan City, Ulsan Metropolitan City, on June 24, 2013, that the Plaintiff constitutes class 2 of the brain disease disorder on the ground that it is acknowledged that it is impossible to perform daily life action by using it at the expense of the head of the competent Si/Gun, and around August 5, 2015, the Plaintiff received a decision that it constitutes class 3 of the brain disease disorder on the ground that it is impossible to use all descendants of the "re-used part" and it is confirmed that it is entirely necessary to assist others in performing daily life action by using it," and the Plaintiff was finally able to train simple behavior of daily life on the ground that it falls under class 2 of the intellectual disability, i.e., "persons who can have a job not requiring special skills without complicated supervision and assistance," and thus, constitutes class 3 of the brain disease disability of class 3 and class 1 of the total disability of class 3.

(d) Relevant statutes;

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 13, 18 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) On September 6, 2012, around 13:54, the Plaintiff completed a natural science curriculum at around 5:0, and went to the front of the instant structure in order to find out a cover of K, which was hidden on the instant structure, among the students of the same school, in order to go to the 6th regular sports class. As the instant structure was destroyed due to the Plaintiff’s failure to check the Plaintiff’s weight, the instant accident occurred.

2) As above, the instant accident occurred while the Plaintiff was moving to outdoor stairs in order to complete a natural science class in the five school hours and attend a 6 school class, and constitutes a school safety accident under Article 2 subparagraph 6 of the former School Safety Act (amended by Act No. 11690, Mar. 23, 2013; hereinafter “former School Safety Act”).

3) Therefore, pursuant to the former School Safety Act, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the sum of KRW 1,263,822,596 as the deduction benefit [128,738,386 medical care benefit + 102,707,986 medical care benefit expenses for drugs and physical therapy in the future + 19,80,000 medical care expenses related to sex surgery in the future + 6,230,692 disability benefit + 41,450,692 won as the actual income + 361,450,692 won + 50,000 won + 723,63,518 won of nursing benefits (i.e., 9,080,000 won in the future + 723,000,000 won in the future + 71,515,515) and damages for delay).

B. Defendant’s assertion

1) Mutual aid benefits under the former School Safety Act are paid only to cases where a school safety accident is attributable to the principal, teacher, supervisor, etc. with respect to the school safety accident. Since the instant accident was wholly caused by the Plaintiff’s negligence, it does not constitute a school safety accident under Article 2 subparag. 6 of the former School Safety Act.

2) Even if the instant accident constitutes a school safety accident, the Plaintiff is negligent in the occurrence of the instant accident. Thus, the Defendant’s liability to pay mutual aid benefits should be limited in consideration of the Plaintiff’s negligence pursuant to Article 19-2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the School Safety Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 24423, Mar. 23, 2013; hereinafter “former Enforcement Decree of the School Safety Act”) and Article 2-3 of the former Enforcement Rule of the School Safety Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Education No. 1, Mar. 23, 2013; hereinafter “former Enforcement Rule of the School Safety Act”).

3) In addition, the Defendant paid KRW 200,000,000 to the Plaintiff on September 23, 2016, which was after the judgment of the first instance court was rendered, and thus, the Defendant extinguished the Plaintiff’s claim for benefits equivalent to the same amount.

4) Even after the treatment of the Plaintiff was completed on or around December 31, 2013, the Plaintiff received medical care benefits of KRW 15,100,940 in total from the Defendant thereafter. Since treatment for the Plaintiff, which was performed after the treatment was completed, is to prevent the aggravation of fixed symptoms, it does not fall under the subject of medical care benefits. As such, the Plaintiff is liable to receive benefits equivalent to the above amount of medical care benefits from the Defendant without any legal cause and to pay the Plaintiff a loss equivalent to the above amount of medical care benefits. Therefore, the Plaintiff is obligated to return unjust enrichment to the Defendant, and the Defendant is offset against the Plaintiff’s claim for return of unjust enrichment against the Defendant within the scope of equal amount with the deductible benefit claim against the Defendant.

3. Determination

(a) Occurrence of liability to pay mutual aid benefits;

1) Relevant legal principles

Article 2 subparag. 6 of the former Act provides that the purpose of the Act is to prevent school safety accidents and to provide for matters necessary for the implementation of the school safety accident compensation mutual aid program in order to promptly and appropriately compensate for damages caused by school safety accidents (Article 1). Article 2 subparag. 1 of the former Act provides that "any accidents that occur during educational activities, such as all accidents that cause harm to the life or body of students, school employees, or participants in educational activities, and school meal services, which directly cause harm to the life or body of the principal and are prescribed by Presidential Decree" (Article 2 subparag. 6 of the Act). Article 2 subparag. 1 of the former Act provides that the term "school safety accident" means any accident that occurs during educational activities, such as school personnel, school personnel, or participants in educational activities, and all kinds of events or games recognized by the principal (Article 2 subparag. 4 and subparag. 2 of the Act on Safety of Schools).

2) Determination

A) With respect to the instant case, the fact that the instant accident was caused by outdoor stairs in order to complete a natural science class for the fifth class and to attend a 6th class gym classes is recognized as above. According to Article 2 subparag. 4 (c) of the former School Safety Act and Article 2 subparag. 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the School Safety Act, the passage of the 5th class class class session to the 6th class class class class hours during the 6th class class hours during the 6th class class session constitutes an activity related to the class, and therefore, the instant accident constitutes an accident during the 2th class 6th class under Article 2 subparag. 6 of the former School Safety Act, which is caused by the student’s life or body.

B) Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff mutual aid benefits under the relevant statutes, such as the former School Safety Act.

B. Scope of liability to pay mutual aid benefits

1) Medical care benefits

A) Relevant provisions

The former School Safety Act provides that "medical care benefits shall be the amount borne by the beneficiary or his/her guardian pursuant to Article 44 of the National Health Insurance Act among the expenses incurred in treating the injury or disease suffered by the beneficiary due to the school safety accident" (Article 36 (2)). On the other hand, medical care benefits include diagnosis and examination, provision of medicine and materials for medical treatment, treatment and surgery, other medical treatment, rehabilitation treatment, hospitalization, nursing, escort, and the prescription and purchase of supportive equipment (Article 36 (3)).

B) Determination

(1) In light of the contents and purport of the relevant provisions, medical care benefits under the former School Safety Act are limited to the amount borne by the beneficiary or his/her guardian, etc. among the expenses actually incurred in the treatment of the beneficiary, and it is not subject to the payment for future treatment costs anticipated to be paid.

(2) Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion on the premise that the beneficiary of medical care benefits will include future medical expenses expected to be paid in the future is without merit without further review.

(ii) disability benefits;

A) Relevant provisions

Under Article 37 (1) of the former School Safety Act, when a beneficiary who received medical care benefits under Article 36 has a disability even after the completion of medical care, the amount prescribed in Article 3 (2) 3 of the State Compensation Act and the consolation money prescribed in Article 3 (5) of the same Act shall be paid to the beneficiary or his/her guardian, etc. In addition, Article 3 (2) 3 of the State Compensation Act provides that "if a victim has a physical disability after the completion of medical care, the victim shall be compensated for the disability compensation by the amount calculated by multiplying the amount of the monthly salary, actual monthly income, or average wage at the time of the injury by the future employmentable period."

B) Daily income (the amount set forth in Article 3(2)3 of the State Compensation Act);

(1) Facts of recognition and evaluation

○ Gender: Male

○ Date of birth: 0 birth

○ Age at the time of the instant accident: 12 years of age and 4 months;

○ Name of lease: 38.94 as of the time of an accident, 38.94, and 6 August 2051, 2051

○ Employmentable period and the number of working days: From April 29, 2022 after the Plaintiff completed military service, the 22th day of April from April 29, 202 to April 28, 2060, which is the day before the Plaintiff reaches 60 years of age, as the maximum working age; total of 456 months.

○ Monthly Income: 1,931,710 won per month by applying 87,805 won per day of the first half-year Urban Daily Wage from 22 years of age to 22 years of age, which the Plaintiff seeks (=87,805 won X 22)

○ Ratio of Loss of Labor Capacity: 100% [Article 16(1) and [Attachment II] 2(5) of the Enforcement Decree of the former Act on Safety of Schools]

○ 1/3 of revenues from August 7, 2051 to April 28, 2060, the date following the end date of the operation period, from August 7, 2051, shall be deducted from living expenses (calculated as 66.67% per annum).

[Reasons for Recognition] A without dispute, significant facts in this court, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 10 and 11, result of the commission of physical examination to the director of the P Hospital by the court of first instance, rule of experience and purport of whole pleadings

(2) Calculation

In accordance with Article 37(1) of the former School Safety Act and Article 3(2)3 of the State Compensation Act, the amount to be paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff shall be calculated at the present price at the time of the accident in this case, based on the method that deducts intermediary interest at the rate of 5/12% per month based on the facts of the above recognition and the evaluation of the above recognition, it shall be KRW 361,450,692 as shown in the following table (in principle, the period for the convenience of calculation shall be calculated on a monthly basis, but less than the last month and less than KRW 1,00, hereinafter the same shall apply).

A person shall be appointed.

C) Consolation money

According to Article 19 and attached Table 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the former Enforcement Decree of the School Safety Act, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff lost 100% of the working ability as the victim himself/herself, and thus, the Defendant’s consolation money to be paid to the Plaintiff is 20,00,000 won.

D) Determination on the Defendant’s assertion of comparative negligence

In light of the content and purport of the former Enforcement Decree of the School Safety Act, Article 19-2 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the School Safety Act provides that "the defendant may set off disability benefits, nursing benefits, and bereaved family's benefits pursuant to Articles 37 through 39 of the School Safety Act if he/she was negligent in calculating the disability benefits, nursing benefits, and bereaved family's benefits." Article 2-3 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the School Safety Act provides that comparative negligence set-off pursuant to Article 19-2 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the School Safety Act may be set up within the scope of 50% for students of not less than the fourth grade of elementary school." However, in light of the contents and purport of the former School Safety Act, Article 19-2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the School Safety Act limits the rights of the beneficiary without delegation by law, and thus, is invalid (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2016Da208389, Oct. 19, 2016).

(iii) Nursing benefits;

A) The plaintiff's assertion

(1) The Plaintiff paid KRW 9,080,000,000, when receiving nursing care through a nursing room from September 20, 2012 to February 8, 2013, while hospitalized treatment in a M Hospital.

(2) In addition, even after the treatment of the Plaintiff was completed on or around December 31, 2013, the Plaintiff is in a state that the Plaintiff is in need of regular nursing due to the intellectual disability and brain cerebral disease that occurred in the instant accident, and is receiving nursing from the Plaintiff’s mother C from December 31, 2013 to December 31, 2013.

(3) Therefore, pursuant to Article 38(1) of the former School Safety Act, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the sum of the nursing benefits (i.e., KRW 723,633,518 (i.e., KRW 9,080,00) (i., KRW 714,553,518) from the date of completion of treatment to the date of closing of argument in the trial.

B) Occurrence of the right to claim nursing benefits

(1) Relevant legal principles

Article 38(1) of the former School Safety Act provides that "Nursing benefits shall be paid to beneficiaries or their guardians, etc. who have received medical care benefits under Article 36 where it is medically or occasionally needed to attend the school even after receiving medical care." Article 17(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the School Safety Act provides that "The payment of nursing benefits shall be paid monthly for the date on which the nursing is actually provided." Thus, "after receiving medical care" can be paid as nursing benefits under the former School Safety Act for the period after receiving medical care. "after receiving medical care, the effect of treatment is no longer expected, and the symptoms are fixed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Da78976, Aug. 20, 2014)." Meanwhile, the above provision of nursing benefits shall not be deemed to fall under the case of Article 17(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the School Safety Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da178976, Apr. 1, 20198).

(2) Determination as to the opening expenses

As seen earlier, Plaintiff A lost labor capacity of 100% due to the instant accident, and comprehensively taking account of the evidence as well as the purport of the entire arguments in Gap evidence and the statement in Gap evidence No. 9, the Plaintiff may recognize the fact that the Plaintiff paid a total of KRW 9,080,000 nursing expenses from September 20, 2012 to February 8, 2013, as it is necessary to assist others in carrying out daily living activities, such as moving, walking, going out, and going out.

However, in light of the contents and purport of the relevant provisions of the former School Safety Act, the nursing benefits under the former School Safety Act are paid only when the nursing service actually takes place during the period of “after receiving medical treatment.” Thus, the nursing expenses that the Plaintiff paid during the period of hospitalized treatment should be excluded from the subject of nursing benefits under the former School Safety Act. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

(3) Determination on the future part of the nursing expenses

(A) According to the facts acknowledged earlier, as to whether the Plaintiff constitutes a case requiring constant or occasional nursing, the Plaintiff was suffering from cerebral disease and intellectual disability due to the instant accident, thereby losing 100% of the ability to work. Around June 24, 2013 after being determined by the head of Ulsan Metropolitan City head of the Ulsan Metropolitan City with the second grade of cerebral disease, the Plaintiff was determined by the third grade of cerebral disease and injury on August 5, 2015. Around September 8, 2015, the Plaintiff was finally determined by the first grade of cerebral disease and the second grade of cerebral disease and cadastral disability, and the Plaintiff appears to fall under the first grade of cerebral disease and the fourth grade of the former Enforcement Decree of the School Safety Act for the period from December 31, 2013 to August 4, 2015.

(B) Next, in light of the following circumstances, the effect of treatment can no longer be expected against the Plaintiff and whether the symptoms led to a fixed state, and in light of the overall purport of each of the evidence as seen earlier, the effect of treatment can no longer be expected from December 31, 2013 to the Plaintiff from the point of time to December 31, 2013, and the symptoms can no longer lead to a fixed state.

① From September 6, 2012 to November 15, 2012, the date of the instant accident, the Plaintiff continued to be hospitalized and hospitalized in a hospital or M Hospital after undergoing several times of surgery, but appears to have not undergone the aforementioned surgery. Moreover, the Plaintiff’s hospitalization and outpatient treatment, which took place after December 31, 2013, appears to have been primarily for the purpose of preventing the aggravation of the Plaintiff’s state of disability as a result of physical therapy and rehabilitation treatment, and thus, the Plaintiff’s disability cannot be deemed to have been improved.

② In light of the degree of disability diagnosis issued on December 31, 2013 in the rehabilitation department of M Hospital, “expane” is deemed to have been in the stage of rehabilitation treatment to prevent the aggravation of the Plaintiff’s disability status when treatment, such as surgery, is already necessary for the recovery of the Plaintiff on September 6, 2012, after the surgery, before October 2, 2012 and after the surgery, during rehabilitation treatment, after the surgery was conducted on November 15, 2012.

③ In the first instance court, U of the medical specialist of the P Hospital who has conducted the physical examination of the Plaintiff is deemed to require drug therapy and physical therapy in order to prevent the aftermath that may cause the aftermath, to the maximum extent possible, and to assist the recovery of the remaining mathy even after the aftermath, in order to facilitate the recovery of the aftermath. Considering that the current state, no operation plan is available. However, even around March 2015 when the physical examination was conducted, it seems that there was no treatment method that could expect the active recovery effect.

(C) Furthermore, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings, as to whether the Plaintiff was actually under medical care, the Plaintiff may be recognized as being under the care of the Plaintiff’s mother-child C, who is not a professional sick person, from around December 31, 2013 to around December 31, 2013.

(D) Therefore, pursuant to Article 38(1) of the former School Safety Act, the Plaintiff may claim for occasional nursing benefits to the Defendant from December 31, 2013 to August 4, 2015, and may claim for full-time nursing benefits from September 8, 2015 to March 27, 2019, which is the date of closing argument in the relevant trial.

C) Amount of nursing benefits

According to Article 17 [Attachment Table 4] of the former Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, Article 40 (4) 63 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, Article 13 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, and the standards for the payment of nursing fees under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (Notice of the Ministry of Labor and Ministry of Employment and Labor No. 2009-38, Article 2014-25 of the Public Notice of the Ministry of Employment and Labor, and Article 2017-39 of the Public Notice of the Ministry of Employment and Labor), the Plaintiff’s nursing class 2. Accordingly, the amount to be paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff is calculated as the present price at the time of the instant accident according to the discount method that deducts the intermediate interest at the rate of 5/12 per month.

A person shall be appointed.

(iv)the agreed amount and the starting point of counting damages.

(A) the amount of recognition

Total amounting to KRW 452,054,798 = Disability benefit 381,450,692 (=actual income of KRW 361,450,692 + 20,000 + 70,604,106 of nursing benefits

(b)the starting point of counting damages;

(1) Article 41 (2) and (4) of the former School Safety Act provides that "the defendant shall decide whether to pay the deduction benefits within 14 days after receiving the claim for the deduction benefits, and if the defendant decides to pay the deduction benefits, he shall pay the deduction benefits without delay to the claimant for the deduction benefits." In light of the contents and purport of the above provision, it cannot be deemed that the defendant is liable for delay of payment of the duty to pay the deduction benefits from the date when the accident occurred to the defendant, and the defendant shall be held liable for delay of payment only after 14 days have passed since the date when the plaintiff requested the payment of the deduction benefits.

(2) Therefore, the base date for calculating damages for delay on the above recognition amount shall be August 21, 2014, after the 14th day from August 6, 2014, on which the copy of the complaint of this case, seeking payment, was served on the Defendant.

5) Determination as to the defendant's repayment and counterclaim of offset

A) Determination as to the Defendant’s assertion of repayment

In full view of the purport of evidence evidence No. 11, as a whole, it is reasonable to deem that the defendant paid 200,000 won to the plaintiff on September 23, 2016, which was after the judgment of the court of first instance was rendered, under the name of disability benefits. However, even though the debtor who was sentenced to provisional execution, paid the amount quoted in the judgment of the court of first instance to the creditor, if the debtor raised an appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance and raised an objection against the amount quoted in the judgment of the court of first instance, it is not deemed that the debtor voluntarily recognized the liability equivalent to the amount quoted in the judgment of the court of first instance and paid it in a fixed manner, but rather that the debtor paid the amount to prevent the expansion of damages incurred from delay as cited in the judgment of the court of first instance and to exempt compulsory execution based on the sentence of provisional execution (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da2446, Nov. 11, 1994); further, it is reasonable to determine the amount of provisional execution based on the judgment of first 16.

B) Determination as to the Defendant’s allegation of offset

On the other hand, Article 47 (2) of the former School Safety Act provides that the right to receive the deduction benefits of the beneficiary cannot be transferred or seized. Accordingly, since the Plaintiff’s claim for the deduction benefits, such as disability benefits and nursing benefits, which the Defendant has against the Defendant is prohibited from seizure, the Defendant cannot oppose the Plaintiff by offsetting that claim (Article 497(8) of the Civil Act). Thus, the Defendant’s assertion on this part is without merit without further review.

6) Sub-decisions

Therefore, with respect to the Plaintiff as mutual aid benefits, the Defendant shall pay 452,054,798 won and 1) 37,450,692 won which is the amount cited in the first instance judgment, which is the starting date of such payment, to the Plaintiff at the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act until April 28, 2016, and 15% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (hereinafter referred to as the "Promotion Act"), with respect to delay damages at the rate of 15% per annum from August 21, 2014, which is 37,450,692, which is the amount cited in the first instance judgment, to the Plaintiff; 20% per annum from the date following the first instance judgment to the date of full payment; 15% per annum from the 205th day after the date of filing the claim for delay damages at the rate of 15% per annum, which is 60% per annum.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case against the defendant is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is partially unfair, the part relating to the plaintiff and the defendant among the judgment of the court of first instance is modified as above, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges

The presiding judge, judge and judge

Judges Gin Jae-in

Judges Invitations

Note tin

1) In this regard, Article 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the former Enforcement Decree of the School Safety Act provides for hours related to educational activities, such as ‘school hours by ordinary route and method (Paragraph 1), ordinary school hours (Paragraph 2) before and after the break time and educational activities, hours of school in accordance with the direction of the principal (Paragraph 3), vocational experience recognized by the principal, workplace field trips and field training, etc. (Paragraph 4), living hours in a dormitory (Paragraph 5), hours of school in a place other than a school (Paragraph 5), and hours of school from a reasonable route and method between the place of dissolution and the place of dissolution or the house or dormitory where educational activities are conducted.

(ii) the victim himself/herself, or herself, 100 per cent loss of labor capacity;

3) According to Article 17 [Attachment 4] of the former Enforcement Decree of the School Safety Act, in the case of regular nursing benefits, Article 37(4)5 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act provides that an amount publicly notified by the Minister of Employment and Labor shall be paid with regard to nursing under Article 37(4)5 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act. Article 37(4) is not nonexistent since the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act was wholly amended by Act No. 8694 on December 14, 2007, and the nursing items among the medical care benefits stipulated in Article 37(4)5 of the former Enforcement Decree are stipulated in Article 40(4)6

4) Unit pricex 365/12 of the nursing benefits

(v) Occasional nursing benefits: 47,800 won (public notice of the Ministry of Employment and Labor No. 2009-38, 209-2, 20 family members and other sick persons) x 2/3

6) Occasional nursing benefits: 51,460 won (public notice of the Ministry of Employment and Labor No. 2014-25, nursing class 2, family member, or other sick person) x 2/3

(vii) Regular Nursing Benefits: 51,460 won (Public Notice of the Ministry of Employment and Labor No. 2017-39, 2nd class of nursing, 2nd class of family members and other sick persons);

8) Article 497 (Prohibition of Set-off against Obligation of Which Attachment is Prohibited)

If claims cannot be attached, the obligor cannot set up against the obligee by set-off.