[1] The scope of the duty of the principal of a school or teacher to protect and supervise students and the standards for the recognition of liability for damages

[2] The case holding that the local government is liable for damages on the ground of the violation of the duty to protect and supervise the affiliated teachers in case where the aggressor knife knife and the victim knife die

[1] Articles 755 and 756 of the Civil Act, Article 2(1) of the State Compensation Act, Article 20 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act / [2] Articles 755 and 756 of the Civil Act, Article 2(1) of the State Compensation Act, Article 20 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, Article 20 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 92Da13646 delivered on February 12, 1993 (Gong1993Sang, 960), Supreme Court Decision 96Da4433 delivered on June 13, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 2147), Supreme Court Decision 9Da44205 delivered on April 11, 200 (Gong2000Sang, 1175), Supreme Court Decision 2005Da24318 delivered on April 26, 2007 (Gong2007Sang, 757)

Plaintiff 1 and two others

Seoul Special Metropolitan City (Law Firm Sam Young, Attorneys Kim Jong-ok et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2003Na71916 delivered on August 11, 2004

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

According to the evidence employed by the court below, it was found that the non-party 1 complained of the uniforms and two copies from the beginning of the first year of middle school, and did not control the harsh labor, and that the non-party 1 was not asked about the school principal non-party 2 at the school from the school to the school in the day of the accident of this case, even though the non-party 1 got the school principal non-party 2 at the school from the school to the school in the day of the accident of this case, and there is no illegality such as violation of the rules of evidence, incomplete hearing, etc. as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

A. The principal of a school or teacher established and operated by a local government is obligated to protect and supervise students. However, such duty to protect and supervise students is not a duty to supervise students on behalf of a legal supervisor, such as a person with parental authority, and it is limited to living relationship within the scope of such duty, and it is limited to living relationship within the scope of such duty, and it is limited to life relationship within the scope of such duty, in consideration of the time and place of educational activities, the offender's ability to separate the offender, the character and conduct of the perpetrator, the relationship between the perpetrator and the victim, and other various circumstances, only when it is predicted or predictability that the accident may normally occur in school life (the specific risk of the accident). (See Supreme Court Decisions 92Da13646, Feb. 12, 1993; 96Da4433, Jun. 13, 1997; 200Da94154, Apr. 14, 2005).

B. Examining the facts duly admitted by the court below in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the instant accident occurred during class hours and occurs during class activities in school, and thus, it can be said that the duty of general protection and supervision of the principal or the teacher is extended.

In addition, in the reality where school violence is becoming a considerable social problem, the defendant and the teachers belonging to the local government that establish and operate the school have general duty of care to protect students by leaving any individual violence or preventing violence in the school. In light of the above school situation, the defendant and the teachers belonging to the school have general duty of care to protect students. In light of the above, since ordinary deceased and their relatives have caused many damages to students by performing acts such as exercising violence against students and taking money or other goods out of the school, and the teachers have been aware of them, it is possible to expect that other violence would be committed without taking effective measures. In addition, it is difficult to see that school teachers in charge of the accident in the face of the accident in the face of the accident in light of the possibility that violence was committed in the face of the occurrence of the accident, and it is difficult to see that the accident in question occurred in the face of the accident in the face of the time of the accident in question.

Therefore, although the judgment of the court below does not contain some inappropriate points in the negligence of the principal and teachers as stated in the reasoning of the judgment, the judgment of the court below that recognized the defendant's liability for damages by violating the duty of protection and supervision of teachers in relation to the accident of this case is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding legal principles as to the duty of protection and supervision

3. As to the third ground for appeal

The court below recognized the defendant's liability for damages by recognizing the causal relationship between the accident of this case, the principal of the above school, and the school teachers' violation of the duty to protect and supervise the students. In light of the records, the above fact-finding and decision of the court below is justified, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles

4. As to the fourth ground for appeal

The fact-finding or determination of the ratio of comparative negligence in a damage compensation case due to a tort belongs to the exclusive authority of the fact-finding court unless it is deemed that it is remarkably unreasonable in light of the principle of equity (see Supreme Court Decisions 2001Da62251, 62268, Nov. 8, 2002; 2002Da43165, Nov. 26, 2002). In light of the records, the court below's fact-finding or determination of the ratio of comparative negligence cannot be deemed considerably unreasonable in light of the principle of equity. Thus, the ground of appeal on this point shall not be accepted.

5. Therefore, the appeal is 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 Kim Nung-hwan (Presiding Justice)