206 Ghana 120760 Damages (as such)

1. Maximum 00);

2. Kim 00

3. Oils00

4. Kim*

The address of the Plaintiffs is Heung-dong

[Judgment of the court below]

Daegu Metropolitan City

Representative Superintendent of the Office of Education

Attorney Lee*

October 17, 2007

November 7, 2007

1. The defendant shall pay 50,984,839 won to the plaintiff Choi 00, and 3,158,132 won to the plaintiff Kim 00, and 1,500,000 won to the plaintiff Park 00, and 500,000 won to the plaintiff*, and 5% per annum from April 18, 2006 to September 20, 207, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. Each of the plaintiffs' remaining claims is dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit are divided into two parts, one of which is borne by the Plaintiffs, and the remainder by the Defendant respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The defendant of the Young-gu Office shall pay 97,828,428 won, and 12,638,760 won to the plaintiff Kim 00, and 10,000 won to the plaintiff 00, and 5,000,000 won to the plaintiff 5,00,000 won, and 5% per annum from April 18, 2006 to the delivery date of the copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. The former 00 showed violent inclinations from the time when he had come to the second grade of the 2nd grade of the Daegu Suwon-gu Man-gu 1, 254 mobilization middle school, which was located in the 2nd grade, and had continued counseling from the teachers belonging to the defendant. According to the counseling day of September 12, 2005, the former 00 stated that "it is necessary to provide regular counseling, and it is necessary for the first time among the counseling students who are in need of the highest attention to request the outside while making counseling." According to the counseling day of October 6, 2005, according to the counseling day of 200, the former 00 counseling school was conducted with a friendly scale examination as to the former 00 students, and the former 00 counseling was conducted with respect to the former 00 students' adaptation to school life.

B. According to the request of the above middle school's side, the head of the Seongdong-gu Mental Health Center who consulted 00 prior to Sep. 29, 2005, Oct. 5, 2005, and Oct. 3 of the same year on Sep. 29, 2005, * the head of the Sung-gu Mental Health Center * the head of Sep. 29, 2005, * the children who sexually bullying himself, expressed that the former 00 himself would display a deadly weapon to the children who sexually hars himself, and actually carried with a watch and a signal within the door, and that there was a case in which the friendly Gu was protruding before the date of counseling.

C. On October 13, 2005, the Kim &&&&D consulted with the preceding 00 business triped on October 13, 2005 submitted to the school a statement of opinion that the former 00 shows a magnetic disorder, and that it is a situation in which medical treatment is required in order to lead school life by doing an act such as accompanying things such as friendly and usual times because it did not control brub behavior.

D. On April 4, 2006, when he was attending the third grade of the above middle school, he heard that the plaintiff 00 who was attending the same grade of the above middle school intended to access the Internet obscenity site at the classroom, and found the third grade 10 class class of the above middle school and asked "whether or not the plaintiff 00 who was hearing this at the Internet obscenity site is a person who wants to connect the Internet obscenity site?" The plaintiff 100 who was hearing this at the back of the above middle school referred to as "he hole for about 00," and insulting him as "humba", and the plaintiff 00 who was hearing this at the back of the above middle school continued to have had a very good appraisal about the plaintiff 1 to the maximum 00.

E. At around 15:30 on April 17, 2006, 00: (a) discovered that the Plaintiff was cleaning in the stairs between the third and fourth floor of the above middle school; (b) laid down some of them; and (c) brought about a dispute with Plaintiff 00, which was put in a bank at ordinary times; and (d) laid down the pipe ( approximately 40cm in length, about 2cm in diameter, about 2cm in diameter) which was going in a bank at ordinary times, and laid down the pipe, and put the Plaintiff 1 the two arms of Plaintiff 200 on the left arms of Plaintiff 1 00, and then put it on a string of treatment days on the unfold of treatment days.

F. As above, Plaintiff 00 was discovered to this 00, which is the above middle school teacher, as in the above E., even though the school was prohibited from taking a student body punishment, it was punished only by 00 times, and the previous 00th marced, the Plaintiff’s maximum 00th marcing of the corridor without a tree, and the Plaintiff’s marcing of the hallway, marcing of the hallway, marcing of the hallway, or harcing of the hallway, etc., or making a strong resistance on the part of the Plaintiff’s body.

G. On April 18, 2006, the 00th day of Apr. 18, 2006, in his house located in Daegu-dong-gu 167-14 Dong-dong-dong-gu, Daegu-gu, 08:0, put a knife ( approximately 27cm in total length, approximately 15cm in blade) and a glass tape into a brue machine without attending the school, distribution the surrounding areas of the above middle school at around 11:20, 11:20, after putting the knife in a glass tape so that the knife knife knife knife knife knife cane knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knif.

H. Plaintiff Kim 00 and U.S.00 are the parents of Plaintiff Choi 00, and Plaintiff Kim* is the sentence of Plaintiff Choi 00. [Grounds for recognition] The facts that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 through 3, Gap evidence 8-2 through 7, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, Eul evidence 9-1 through 10, Eul evidence 10-7, and Eul evidence 10-1 through 7, Eul evidence 10-10, witness **'s testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Grounds for liability

(4) The principal of a school or a teacher established and operated by a local government is obligated to protect and supervise students on behalf of the legal supervisor, such as the person with parental authority, according to the Education Act. It is not the duty to protect and supervise the students. It is not the case’s life relationship that is closely indivisible within the scope of such duty, but the principal of a school or the teacher was responsible for the violation of the duty to protect and supervise the students by taking into account the time and place of educational activities, the identity and conduct of the perpetrator, the relationship between the perpetrator and the victim, and other various circumstances and it is predicted or predictability that the accident may normally occur in school life (the specific risk of the accident). Thus, the duty to protect and supervise the students of this case is not only the duty to protect and supervise the students of this case, but also the duty to protect and supervise the students of this case to the extent that the school was likely to have been exposed to an accident that occurred during the period of 00 years prior to the accident.

B. Limitation on liability

Meanwhile, according to the above facts, it is sufficiently known that Plaintiff 00, who searched Plaintiff 1's obscenity as 00, had a view to 00 another student's place where other students exist, and even thereafter, the act of inducing violence of 00 was committed by continuously insulting speech, and even according to Plaintiff 1's assertion, Plaintiff 00 was a student with strong violent and contingent tendency accompanying knife, knife, pipe, etc., and Defendant 0% of the total amount of damages incurred by Defendant's 0% of the total amount of damages caused by this case's 0% of the total amount of damages and 0% of the total amount of damages incurred by Plaintiff 1's negligence. In light of the above facts, Plaintiff 1 and Plaintiff 1 were aware that this case's 00th of the total amount of violence and 00% of the total amount of damages caused by Defendant's 00th of the total amount of damages caused by this case's 00% of the total amount of damages.

3. Scope of damages.

In addition to the following separate statements, it is as shown in the attached Table of Calculation of Compensation for Damages (in accordance with the Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance that deducts interim interest at a rate of 5/12 per month as a simple interest, it shall be calculated at present, and less than monthly and less than KRW 1 shall be discarded for the convenience of calculation).

(a) Actual income:

(1) Facts of recognition and evaluation

(a)personal information;

On July 24, 1991, the plaintiff last 00 was the male of 14 years old and 8 years old at the time of the accident, and the life expectancy was 61.74 years.

(b) occupation and income;

Plaintiff 1, 200 was a middle student at the time of the accident, but as the same was residing in the city, if an adult, he could have earned income from the amount of money calculated by multiplying 58,883 won of urban daily wage around October 2007, which is the date of closing the argument, by 22 days of monthly operation.

(C) Operating Period: From July 24, 2011 to July 24, 2051, the rate of latter disability and labor ability loss (D) of July 24, 205, which became an adult: Permanent disability of 15% in good form after the removal of the Amopona in the part IV of the Uniform IV.

(d) Actual income amount: 44,228,428 won (see attached Table of Calculation of Damages)

[Identification Evidence] Clear Facts in this Court, Gap evidence Nos. 10, 11, Gap evidence No. 12-1, 2-2, the result of physical entrustment to the Director of the Gyeongbuk University Hospital of this Court, the purport of the whole pleadings, or medical expenses

(a) Wrons treatment expenses: 2,368,760 won (Plaintiff Kim0)

(2) Future treatment costs: 21,464,200 won (10,976,360 + 10,487,840 + 10,840 + 10,000 won) should be calculated at the time of the accident, considering the fact that there is no evidence to acknowledge the fact that the plaintiff last 00 had undergone an operation prior to the closing of the argument in this case, and the age and degree of the plaintiff last 00 injury, the plaintiff last 00 received a half-scam corrective instruction on the day following the closing of argument in this case, and the plaintiff last 00 received a half-scam corrective instruction once more after the lapse of one year following the end of the argument in this case.

[Identification Evidence] The statement No. 6-1 to 17 of the evidence No. 6, and the result of the physical examination commissioned to the director of the hospital at the Ganbuk University, the purport of the whole pleadings

C. Limitation on liability

(1) The defendant's ratio of responsibility: 70% out of the property damage of plaintiffs maximum 00 and Kim 00

(2) After limitation on liability, the property damage of Plaintiff L20 and Plaintiff Kim 00: ① 45,984,839 (attached Form of Damage Calculation) Plaintiff Kim 00: KRW 1,658,132 (attached Form of Damage Calculation)

(d) Mutual aid:

Even if the defendant's liability is recognized, the defendant asserts that since the parents of the former 00's parents paid 11 million won in the course of the criminal agreement with the plaintiffs as damages, they should be deducted from the amount of damages to be paid by the defendant. However, even in the case of receiving the criminal agreement, if it is clearly stated that the amount received at the time of the agreement is paid as consolation money, it cannot be deducted from the amount of damages because it is not considered as the amount paid as consolation money, and it can be considered in calculating consolation money (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Da53942, Sept. 20, 196). Under the overall purport of evidence No. 8-7 and arguments, it can be known that the plaintiff U.S. as the legal representative of the plaintiff 100, who was the plaintiff ** the fact that the plaintiff U.S. received the above amount as a criminal consolation money under the criminal agreement with the perpetrator, unlike the defendant's assertion, it cannot be deducted from the amount of damages, as follows.

(e) consolation money;

Considering the age, family relation, degree of injury and post-living disability of Plaintiff 100, background and result of the accident, whether or not the defendant's liability is limited, whether or not the defendant's liability is limited, and whether or not the amount of consolation money has already been paid KRW 11 million from the previous **, and other circumstances shown in the argument of this case, it is reasonable to separately determine the amount of consolation money for Plaintiff 100,000 won for Plaintiff 1,50,000 won for Plaintiff 1,50,000 won for Plaintiff Kim*, and 500,000 won for Plaintiff Kim*.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff Maximum 00 3,158,132 won to the plaintiff 1,500,000 won to the plaintiff 1,50,000 won to the plaintiff 1,50,000 won, Kim* from April 18, 2006, which is the date of the occurrence of the accident of this case, 5% per annum under the Civil Act from September 20, 2007, which is the date of delivery of a copy of the application for correction of claim and cause of claim of this case until September 20, 207, 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, each claim of the plaintiffs is justified within the above scope of recognition, and each claim of the plaintiffs is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Park Young-ho