Liability for damages by a minor who has the ability to assume responsibility and by a supervisor

In case of damage caused by a minor's illegal act, if there is a proximate causal relation with the minor's breach of duty by the supervisor, the supervisor shall be liable as the general tortfeasor.

Articles 750 and 755(1) of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 74Da1795 Decided January 14, 1975 (Gong1975, 8293) (Gong1989, 886) 88Meu2745 Decided May 9, 1989 (Gong1989, 886)

Attorney Hah-nam et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant

Defendant 1 and one other Defendants, Defendant 1 et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Gwangju High Court Decision 87Na345 delivered on July 22, 1987

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendants.

1. We examine the third ground for appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that the defendants neglected supervision and education as the guardian of the non-party 1 who was a minor at the time of the crime of this case, and that the non-party 1 caused the death of the non-party 1. Thus, there is no room to believe that the defendants' assertion that the non-party 1 did not violate the supervision obligation with respect to the non-party 1 is erroneous.

In addition, the court below did not render any judgment on the testimony of the first instance court witness Kim Jong-ho, which is consistent with the above defendants' assertion, is identical to the theory of lawsuit, but it did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the rejection of the judgment, since the court below's rejection of the testimony of the court below and the testimony of the above Kim Jong-ho, compared with the trial evidence

The issue is groundless.

2. We examine the first ground for appeal.

In the event of a loss caused by a minor’s illegal act, if there is a proximate causal relation with the minor’s breach of duty by the supervisor, the supervisor is liable for damages as a general tortfeasor if there is a proximate causal relation with the minor’s breach of duty by the supervisor (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 8Da2745, May 9, 1989; 74Da1795, Jan. 14, 1975).

Therefore, the court below is justified in holding that the Defendants are liable for compensation for damages sustained by the Plaintiff, who was the father of the above Yhee and her mother, based on the recognition and determination that the Defendants neglected to perform their duty of supervision and education as the guardian of Nonparty 1, who was a minor at the time of committing the crime of this case, and that Nonparty 1 caused the death of the above YY.

In addition, the part of the court below's explanation that "the supervisor's responsibility and the supervisor's responsibility concurrently exist, and in this case, the defendants did not prove that the supervisor did not neglect his duty of supervision over the non-party 1, and it cannot be the ground for reversal of the judgment of the court below unless there is any error in the judgment of the court below as to the above recognition (and in this case, the person with parental authority over the minor is responsible for the failure of supervision over the minor to properly supervise the minor, under Article 750 of the Civil Act, for the minor's failure to supervise the minor, it cannot be said that the court below's decision of January 24, 1989, which was pointed out by reference to the defendant's attorney, was judged on this point, and therefore, it cannot be said that this case

3. The second ground of appeal is examined.

In light of the record, it cannot be viewed that there was any negligence on the part of the plaintiff, who is a pregnant scar or his father, when the victim was killed for the non-party 1 even after examining the record, so there is no error of law like the theory of lawsuit on the ground that the negligence was not taken into account. The arguments cannot be employed.

4. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Jong-soo (Presiding Justice) Lee Chang-soo Kim Jong-won