Whether the payment of deduction benefits under the "Act on the Prevention of and Compensation for Accidents at School" is premised on the fact that the school is liable for legal liability (negative) and the validity of the provision that sets aside that comparative negligence may be set off in the event of negligence on the part of the beneficiary among the criteria for payment of deduction benefits by the School Safety Mutual Aid

The "Act on the Prevention of and Compensation for School Safety Accidents" provides for the implementation of a mutual aid project for school safety accidents in order to compensate for damages sustained by school safety accidents in a prompt and proper manner. The school safety accidents subject to the payment of the deduction benefits do not define the safety accidents on the side of the school, but provide for all accidents that cause harm to the lives or bodies of students, school employees, or participants in educational activities. The school safety mutual aid association is operating a mutual aid project to compensate for the students, school employees, and participants in educational activities due to school safety accidents. The mutual aid association directly provides the benefits to the students, their guardians, etc., and the mutual aid association provides the benefits for the victims' self-harm and self-harm, and does not provide for the reasons for restricting the fault of the beneficiaries. In light of the above, the law and its Enforcement Decree do not provide for the reasons for restricting the payment of the benefits to the beneficiaries, even if the beneficiaries were negligent, it cannot be deemed that there are legal grounds for the payment of the benefits to the beneficiaries' prompt and proper compensation for the damages caused by all school safety accidents.

Articles 1, 2 subparag. 6, 11, 12, 14, 15, 18 subparag. 1 and 2, 35, 41, 43, 51, 390, 396, 750, and 763 of the Act on the Prevention of and Compensation for School Safety Accidents;

Plaintiff 1 and three others (Law Firm Hanl, Attorneys Postal service-related et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

School Safety Mutual Aid Association (Law Firm Lee-il General Law Office, Attorneys Kim Sung-sung et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

April 23, 2010

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 5,00,000 won for each of the 892,276,216 won, plaintiff 2, and 3, and 2,500,000 won for each of them, and 5% per annum for each of them from February 11, 2009 to May 28, 2010, and 20% per annum for each of them from the next day to the date of complete payment.

2. The plaintiffs' remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, 10% is borne by the Plaintiffs, and 90% is borne by the Defendant, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The defendant shall pay 10,00,000 won to the plaintiff 1, respectively, and 5,00,000,000 won to the plaintiff 4 from January 11, 2008 until the delivery date of a copy of the application for modification of the purport and cause of the claim of this case, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

A. On January 11, 2008, Plaintiff 1 (Plaintiff in the judgment of appeal) was a student of ○○○ Middle School Lesing Division, and was engaged in joint training in preparation for juvenile sports events at ○○○○ Middle School Sports Center on or around 16:22, 2008, and caused an accident where ever his head and head had contacted with the counter players, and plucked and plucked during the string process with the counter players (hereinafter “instant accident”). Around 16:22, 2008, Plaintiff 1 (Plaintiff in the judgment of appeal”), which was caused by the instant accident.

B. Plaintiffs 2 and 3 are the parents of Plaintiff 1, and Plaintiff 4 are their children, and the Defendant is an entrepreneur who implements the business of the School Safety Accident Compensation Mutual Aid Association to which the head of ○○○ Middle School was a party.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Entry of Evidence A1 to 4, All of the arguments

2. Occurrence of liability to pay mutual aid benefits;

A. The parties' assertion

In relation to the plaintiffs' claim for the payment of deduction benefits, the defendant pays deduction benefits only when the responsibility of the principal, teachers, supervisors, etc. is recognized with respect to the school safety accident, and the accident in this case occurred due to the whole negligence of the plaintiff 1, and there is no negligence on the part of the school, and thus, the deduction benefits cannot be paid without the negligence on the part of the school. Even if there is the negligence on the part of the school, the plaintiff

Accordingly, the plaintiffs claim deduction benefits under the Act on the Prevention of and Compensation for School Safety Accidents (hereinafter "School Safety Accident Act"), and there is no provision that the deduction benefits should be paid on the basis of the negligence on the part of the school according to the School Safety Accident Act, and the defendant's provision of comparative negligence in the compensation payment provision is against the above Act.

B. Relevant provisions

The School Safety Accidents Act, the Enforcement Decree thereof, and the payment criteria for the defendant's mutual aid benefits shall be as specified in attached Table 1.

C. Determination

The School Safety Act provides that the implementation of a mutual aid project for school safety accidents shall be covered by the Act on the Guarantee of National Basic Living Security and the Act on the Honorable Treatment of Persons of Distinguished Service to Independence in order to compensate for damages sustained by school safety accidents in a prompt and proper manner. School safety accidents subject to the payment of the benefits are not prescribed by the Act on the Compensation of School Safety Accidents, but are prescribed by all accidents that cause harm to the life or body of students, school employees, or participants in educational activities. School Safety Mutual Aid Association is operating a mutual aid project to compensate for the students, school employees, and participants in educational activities due to the school safety accidents. The principal of the school, who is a student, shall pay the mutual aid fee to the Mutual Aid Association. However, the State or local governments shall bear the mutual aid fee if the beneficiary is protected by the Special Act on the Guarantee of National Basic Living Security or the Act on the Guarantee of Persons of Distinguished Service to Independence in School, the school safety mutual aid association shall be the beneficiary of the mutual aid project within the scope of its budget, and the standards for the payment of the benefits to the beneficiaries shall not be determined by negligence or negligence.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the deduction benefits to the plaintiffs in accordance with the School Safety Accident Act and the Enforcement Decree thereof.

3. The scope of liability for payment of mutual aid benefits;

In addition to the following separate statements, the calculation sheet in attached Form 2 is as follows (in accordance with the headmanial calculation method that deducts interim interest at the rate of 5/12 per month as a simple interest, the present price shall be calculated, less than a month for the convenience of calculation, and less than a won shall be included).

(a) Disability benefits:

(a) Actual income: 254,220,491 won;

A) Name of lease: 35% of the name of the passenger, 21.9275 as at the time of an accident, and 9 December 2029 at the end of the name of the passenger.

B) Operating period and operating days: From December 3, 2015 when Plaintiff 1 turns 22 years of age to December 2, 205, the 22th day of December, 2053, which is the day before Plaintiff 1 turns 60 years of age.

(c) Ratio of loss of labor capacity: 100%;

(d) 1/3 of the living cost from the end of the life expectancy to the end of the operating period (calculated as 6.67% of the loss rate of labor capacity);

(e) Monetary assessment of operating capacity: 67,909 won per day of the Urban Daily Wage in the second half of 2009.

2) Consolation money

A) Plaintiff 1: 20,000,000

B) Plaintiffs 2 and 3: each of 5,000,000 won

C) Plaintiff 4: 2,500,000 won

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, the result of the commission of physical examination to the president of the Central University Hospital of this Court, the fact inquiry result, the entire purport of the pleading

(b) Medical care benefits;

(a) Medical expenses: 24,145,441 won;

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap's evidence 5, 6, Gap's evidence 11 (including each number), the purpose of the whole pleadings

2) Future medical expenses: 255,396,627 won

(a) Expenses for sex surgery: 4,569,707 won;

Since it is recognized that the amount of KRW 5,083,80 is necessary at the sex surgery cost, it shall be calculated as being disbursed on April 24, 2010 on the day following the day on which the argument in this case is closed.

(b) Future medical fees for the surgery outside the country and pulmonary surgery: 179,956,575 won;

Since it is necessary to KRW 5,800,000 per year for pulmonary and future treatment costs, and it is recognized that the amount of KRW 8,800,880 per year (24,112 per day x 365 days) is necessary for pulmonary and future treatment costs, the total amount of KRW 13,80,880 per year from April 24, 2010 following the date of the closing of argument in this case shall be calculated.

(c) Interest vehicles: 950,500 won;

Since the purchase cost of chairss requires 500,000 won, the number of them is five years, and Plaintiff 1 purchased wheelchairs on February 24, 2010, it is recognized that Plaintiff 1 purchased the wheelchairs, it shall be calculated from February 24, 2015 every five years from the date of purchase.

(d) Tit lease for the prevention of bathing: 2,328,150 won;

Since it is necessary to purchase a 500,000 won at the cost of the purchase of re-lease for prevention of bathing, and such 3-year life is recognized, it shall be calculated from April 24, 2010, which is the day following the closing of argument in this case.

(e) Speaker’s train stone: 1,988,910 won;

Since it is necessary to purchase 300,000 won at the Speaker's seat, and there is a fact that the number of persons is two years, it shall be calculated from April 24, 2010, which is the day following the closing of argument in this case.

(f) Ordinary necessities, such as diapers: 22,830,285 won;

Since it is recognized that cost of KRW 150,000 per month is necessary for the purchase of daily necessities, such as base return, etc., it shall be calculated from April 24, 2010, which is the day following the closing of argument in this case.

(g) Artificial smoking machine: 42,772,500 won;

From 20,00,000 to 25,000 to 20,000 to the purchase cost of the artificial smoking machine, the life of the plaintiff is five years, and the plaintiff 1 is recognized to have purchased the artificial smoking machine around February 24, 2010. Thus, 22,50,00 to the purchase cost of the artificial smoking machine shall be calculated every five years from February 24, 2015, every five years from the date of purchase.

[Reasons for Recognition] 10 Evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 11

(c) Nursing benefits;

(a) Nursing expenses: 20,256,000 won (Nursing expenses until November 30, 2009);

2) Future nursing expenses: 318,257,657 won;

From December 1, 2009 to the end of life expectancy 67,140 won per day.

[Reasons for Recognition] The statement No. 7, the result of the commission of physical examination to the director of the Central University Hospital of this Court, and the result of fact inquiry, the entire purport of the argument

(d) Calculation amount and delay damages.

1) Plaintiff 1: 892,276,216 won [the disability benefit 274,220,491 won [the disability benefit 254,220,491 won + the allowance 20,000,000 won + the medical care benefit 279,542,068 won + the medical care benefit 24,145,441 + the medical care benefit 255,396,627 won + the nursing benefit 338,513,657 won [the nursing expense 20,256,00 won + the nursing expense 318,257,657 won]; and

2) Plaintiffs 2 and 3: 5,000,000 won, respectively.

3) Plaintiff 4: 2,500,000 consolation money

(iv) damages for delay;

According to Article 41(2) and (4) of the School Safety Act, the Mutual-Aid Association shall determine whether to pay the mutual-aid benefits within 14 days from the date of receiving the claim for the mutual-aid benefits, and in cases where the Mutual-Aid Association has decided to pay the mutual-aid benefits, it is difficult to deem that the defendant's obligation to pay the mutual-aid benefits arises from the date of the occurrence of the accident in this case, and it is reasonable to deem that the defendant's obligation to pay the mutual-aid benefits arises without delay from the date of receiving the claim for the mutual-aid benefits, and from the date of determining whether to pay the mutual-aid benefits within 14 days from the date of receiving the claim for the mutual-aid benefits.

4. Conclusion

Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff 1 to the plaintiff 892,276,216 won, the plaintiff 2, and 3 each of 5,000,000 won and 2,50,000 won to the plaintiff 4 from February 11, 2009 to May 28, 2010, which is the date of the decision that the defendant's defense is a substantial dispute, 5% per annum under the Civil Act and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment. Thus, the plaintiffs' claim is justified within the above recognition scope, and the part exceeding the above recognition scope is dismissed as it is without merit.

[Attachment 1] Act on the Prevention of and Compensation for School Safety Accidents: omitted

[Attachment 2] Mutual Aid Benefit Calculation Table: omitted

Judges Lee Jae-chul (Presiding Judge)