In a case where a middle school established and operated by a local government A claimed damages against Eul and its parents, non-incompetents, and local governments when the student Eul was exposed to the face of another anti-student Byung at the time of his rest, the case holding that although Eul is jointly and severally liable for damages suffered by his family members as Eul's direct perpetrator, and is a parent who is obligated to supervise Eul's et al., the local government was not liable under Article 2 of the State Compensation Act.

In a case where Gap's middle school established and operated by Gap's local government claimed damages against Eul and its parents, non-incompetent, and local government when Eul suffered from other anti-students' face at the time of rest, the case holding that Eul's local government is not liable under Article 2 of the State Compensation Act, in view of the fact that Eul's principal and Eul's teacher who are responsible for supervision over Eul's school violence are jointly and severally liable for damages suffered by the victim's family members, but it is difficult to view that the principal and Eul's teacher who are responsible for supervision over Eul's school violence have predicted or predicted the occurrence of injury to Eul and Eul's school teachers were not liable under Article 2 of the State Compensation Act, in light of the fact that Eul's school leader and Eul's teacher who are responsible for supervision over Eul's school violence were conducted several times against the students immediately after the opening of school.

Articles 750 and 751 of the Civil Act, Article 2(1) of the State Compensation Act

Plaintiff 1 and three others (Attorney Jae Jae-hun, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and three others (Attorney Woo-won, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

March 20, 2015

1. Defendants 1, 2, and 3 jointly and severally pay to Plaintiffs 14,225,280 won, 2,000 won to Plaintiff 2,200,000 won to Plaintiff 3, and 1,000,000 won to Plaintiff 4, and 5% per annum from November 6, 2012 to April 3, 2015, and 20% per annum to the day of full payment.

2. The plaintiffs' remaining claims against the defendants 1, 2, and 3 are dismissed.

3. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendant Daegu Metropolitan City are all dismissed.

4. Of the litigation costs incurred between the plaintiffs and the defendants 1, 2, and 3, 3/10 shall be borne by the plaintiffs, and the remaining 7/10 shall be borne by the defendants 1, 2, and 3. The litigation costs incurred between the plaintiffs and the defendant Daegu Metropolitan City shall be borne by the plaintiffs.

5. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The Defendants jointly and severally pay to Plaintiff 1 the amount of KRW 24,301,080 (=the amount of KRW 4,091,080) + the amount of KRW 5,210,000 + the amount of solatium 15,00,000 + the amount of solatium 5,000,000, the amount of solatium 5,000,000 to Plaintiff 3, and the amount of solatium 2,50,000,000 to Plaintiff 4, respectively, and the amount of KRW 5% per annum from November 6, 2012 to the date of delivery of a complaint, and from the next day to the date of full payment, the amount of money calculated at each rate of KRW 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

1. Claim against Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and Defendant 3 (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Defendant 1, etc.”)

A. Facts of recognition

(1) Plaintiffs 1 and 1 were enrolled in the first grade of ○ Middle School located in Daegu-gu, 2012 (Plaintiff 1 was the first grade and seventh grade, and Defendant 1 was the first grade and second grade). Plaintiffs 2, 3, and 4 are the father, mother, and mother of Plaintiff 1. Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 are the father, mother, and mother of Defendant 1. At that time, Nonparty 1 was the teacher of Defendant 1, and Nonparty 2 was the principal of ○○ Middle School. Defendant Daegu-gu is the establishment and operation of ○ Middle School.

(2) On November 5, 2012, Defendant 1: (a) assaulted Plaintiff 1’s face from the fourth floor of the main floor of the ○○ Middle School (a space where students’ right is located, is separated from classrooms) at around 11:46, the break time, which is one of the four-time lessons and waits for four-time lessons; and (b) inflicted injury on Plaintiff 1, such as bones bones, bones, etc. (hereinafter “the instant injury”). Because of the instant injury, Plaintiff 1 suffered from stress disorder after trauma.

[Reasons for Recognition] No dispute, each entry in Gap's 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 16, 25 (including paper numbers), Eul's evidence 7, 8, 9, Eul's evidence 11, 12, and 13 (including paper numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

B. Occurrence of liability for damages

According to the above facts, Defendant 1 is a direct perpetrator, Defendant 2, and Defendant 3 is a minor attending the first grade of middle school, and is a parent who has an obligation to supervise Defendant 1, who is not yet mature emotionally, and is jointly and severally liable for damages suffered by Plaintiffs 1 and their family members.

C. Scope of damages

(1) 4,015,280 won

The evidence Nos. 7, 8, and 21 of the evidence Nos. 4-7, 8, and 21 are medical treatment costs (medical treatment costs) for plaintiffs 3 and 4, and it is difficult to recognize it as evidence of the treatment costs against plaintiffs 1

The evidence No. 4 16 is medical expenses for the young children and their territories on January 18, 2013, and the evidence No. 4 19 is a receipt for the verification fee on January 22, 2013. Thus, it is difficult to recognize it as evidence of the king medical expenses for the injury of this case.

Therefore, the treatment costs for Plaintiff 1 are KRW 4,015,280 (i.e., the sum of KRW 4,091,080, the sum of the treatment costs for Plaintiff 1’s 4,091,080, KRW 7,200, KRW 5,200 of the evidence No. 4 - KRW 8 treatment costs of evidence No. 4 - KRW 3,700 of the evidence No. 4 - KRW 28,900 of the evidence No. 4 - KRW 19 KRW 13,00 of the evidence No. 4 - KRW 25,00 of the evidence No. 4).

As to this, Defendant 1, etc. asserted that the remainder of the medical expenses other than the medical expenses stated in the evidence Nos. 4-1 through 6, 11, 17, 18, 20, 24 through 26 are related to the mental health and treatment, etc., which is unrelated to the injury of the instant case. However, in full view of the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence Nos. 1-2, No. 16, and No. 25, Plaintiff 1, etc., as shown in the separate sheet, can be known that he was receiving treatment in the area of mental health due to mental injury as shown in the separate sheet, and there is no evidence to prove that the cost of the treatment for the period should be calculated differently from the above-mentioned ones. Thus, the above assertion by Defendant 1, etc. is without merit.

(2) future treatment costs of KRW 5,210,000

Recognizing KRW 5,210,00,00 as a result of a physical examination commission of the Human Resources of the Life College (malary surgery) at the expense of future treatment for a large amount of correction, etc., this operation shall not be calculated at the present price for future treatment costs in consideration of the fact that it is possible after three months from the outbreak.

As to this, Defendant 1 et al. asserted that the result of the physical examination of the Gannam University Hospital (Lannam University) includes the result of the entrustment of the body examination of the Gannam University, and that the awareness of the Gannam University Hospital among the above two universities hospitals is higher, only KRW 3 million should be recognized in the future as a result of the entrustment of the body examination of the Gannam University Hospital (Lannam University Hospital). However, all the two universities hospitals can trust, and the result of the physical examination of the Gannam University's movable property and medical center (Lannon-S) was included more in detail regarding medical expenses, and it cannot be readily concluded that the results of the physical examination of the Gannam University Hospital were the same as the medical examination of the Gannam University's movable property and the area, so the above assertion by Defendant 1 et al. is without merit.

(3) Consolation money

In light of the developments and results of the instant injury, the Plaintiffs’ consolation money shall be determined as follows, taking into account all the circumstances revealed in the pleadings of the instant case, such as the age and relationship between Plaintiffs 1 and Defendant 1, and the relationship between the Plaintiffs.

- Plaintiff 1: 5,000,000 won

- Plaintiff 2: 2,000,000

- Plaintiff 3: 2,000,000 won

- Plaintiff 4: 1,000,000 won

(4) Sub-determination

Therefore, Defendant 1, etc. are jointly and severally liable to Plaintiff 1, etc. for 14,225,280 won (i.e., the treatment cost of KRW 4,015,280 + the treatment cost of KRW 5,210,00 + the consolation money of KRW 5,00,000 + the consolation money of KRW 2,00,000, and the consolation money of KRW 1,000,000 to Plaintiff 4, respectively, as well as damages of KRW 1,00,000 for each of them from November 6, 2012 to April 3, 2015, which appears to be reasonable for the plaintiffs to dispute the existence or scope of the obligation to perform, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment.

D. Determination on other arguments by Defendant 1, etc.

(1) While Defendant 1 et al. was within the meaning that Defendant 1 would be good, Defendant 1 et al. asserted to the effect that Defendant 1 would have been at least 50% of the negligence of Plaintiff 1 on the occurrence of the instant injury, etc., since Plaintiff 1 et al. caused the instant injury by verbal abuse along with elbane, and Defendant 1 incurred the instant injury by contingency. However, the evidence submitted by Defendant 1 et al. alone is difficult to recognize it, and the above assertion by Defendant 1 et al. is

(2) Defendant 1 et al. argued to the effect that the above expense should be deducted from the amount of damages, as Defendant 3 did not have any evidence to prove that Defendant 3 was the false horse of Defendant 1, and thus, Defendant 1 et al. caused the instant injury. Accordingly, Defendant 1 et al. made it false to the effect that Defendant 3 would be the good horse of Defendant 1, and that it would be the good horse of Defendant 1, and that Defendant 3 paid 4,80,000 won (=the first 2.3 million won + the second 2.5 million won) and the additional value (the second 2.5 million won) on two occasions, Defendant 3 paid 4,80,000 won at that time. However, there is no evidence to prove that Defendant 3 was the false horse of Plaintiff 3, and there is no ground for this assertion

2. Claim against Defendant Daegu Metropolitan City;

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

The Plaintiff 1 provided consultation with Nonparty 3 and Nonparty 4, a counseling teacher at ○○ Middle School, on behalf of Defendant 1’s parents, on the symptoms of assault, etc., such as stress disorder, etc., during several months to the group, who was so-called so-called Defendant 1 or Defendant 1, without any justifiable reason. Therefore, it was sufficiently predicted that Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2, the principal of the school, on behalf of Defendant 1’s parents, may cause the instant injury. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs are liable under Article 2 of the State Compensation Act to the Defendant Daegu Metropolitan City, which has established and operated ○ Middle School.

B. Determination

(1) The principal of a school or a 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 not a pre-living relationship within the school, but a living relationship closely indivisible to do so. Even if it is a living relationship within the scope of such duty, it shall be limited to a place, the perpetrator's ability to separate the offender, the perpetrator's character and conduct, the relationship between the perpetrator and the victim, and other various circumstances, only if it is predicted or predictability that the accident may normally occur in school life, or if it is predicted or foreseeable that the accident may normally occur in school life (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 96Da4433, Jun. 13, 1997; 9Da4205, Apr. 11, 200).

(2) Considering that there is no dispute or that Nonparty 1 did not know of the facts indicated in the evidence of evidence Nos. 3, 6, 7, 19, and 20 (including a serial number), the following circumstances were considered to have been comprehensively taken into account, ① the principal of the ○○ Middle School after opening of 2012 to prevent school violence against the students and parents several times, ② the counseling teacher of the ○○ Middle School was unable to have known that there was no clear evidence of violence on the part of the Plaintiff 1 on June 11, 2012 and July 26, 2012, ③ the counseling card of the ○○ School was prepared by Nonparty 1 on the part of the Plaintiff 1 on the part of the Plaintiff 1 on the premise that there was no other evidence of violence on the part of the Plaintiff 1 on the part of the Plaintiff 1 on the part of the Plaintiff 1 on the day on which the instant injury occurred, ③ the consultation card was prepared by Nonparty 4 on the part of the Plaintiff 1 on the day before the date of the instant injury.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims against the defendant 1 et al. are accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendant Daegu Metropolitan City are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges sexual standards

Note 1) Although the Plaintiffs stated in the purport of the claim as “each party”, the Plaintiffs changed the meaning into “joint and several” to avoid confusions.