The duty of care of a staff member of a reformatory to prevent the death penalty between the commissionings confined in the juvenile reformatory;

In addition to the commissioned students who were confined in the juvenile reformatory, if there was a failure to perform the executives by separately taking criminal records, high reference relations, etc., other than the commissioned students who were appointed by the reduction of the number of juvenile inmates, and they frequently committed violence to the commissioning students, the staff members of the separate suit including the above daily life officer shall be responsible to prevent accidents by preventing the death penalty in the separate suit and taking special measures against the commissioning students with significant violent nature as above.

Article 2 of the State Compensation Act

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 3 others, Counsel for defendant-appellee

Korea

Seoul High Court Decision 85Na89 delivered on November 22, 1985

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that the non-party 1 was entrusted to the Seoul Juvenile Reformatory and sent out to the non-party 3's employees on January 6, 1984 at the living room 09:40 living room 5 and the non-party 2's reading under the guidance of the non-party 2 on the day, the non-party 2 was in the above life room 5 and the non-party 3 did not know about the non-party 1's foster life and the situation that the non-party 3 did not know about the non-party 1's foster life and did not know about the non-party 3's foster life and did not know about the non-party 1's foster life, but did not know about the non-party 1's safe growth rate, but did not know about the non-party 3's safe growth rate of the non-party 1's safe growth rate, and found the non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1's safe growth.

In order to ensure the safety of the juvenile's life and body, a juvenile reformatory at the juvenile reformatory is held under detention by using force to accommodate and be tried by the family court, etc. (Article 17 (1) 3 of the Juvenile Act, Article 10, Article 12 of the Juvenile Reformatory Act). Thus, in order to ensure the safety of the juvenile's life and body, the staff of the State and the relevant juvenile reformatory must complete a meeting. Thus, treatment at the juvenile reformatory should be able to obtain a reduction of quality and judgment during physical and mental safety (Article 2 of the Juvenile Reformatory Treatment Regulation). Employees at the juvenile reformatory's life room are not obliged to prevent the above-mentioned death penalty (Article 17 (1) 3 of the Juvenile Act, which may be conducted between the juveniles, and to prevent the above-mentioned death penalty (Article 17 (1) and Article 12 of the Juvenile Reformatory Act). According to the established judgment of the court below, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the entrusted children's self-determination of life and order in the above case.

The issue is groundless.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Park Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)