(a) Illegal acts of a minor with the ability to assume responsibility and an obligation of a supervisor to compensate for damages;

(b) The case holding that a person responsible for joint tort committed by a minor as a general tortfeasor on the ground that he/she was negligent by significantly neglecting his/her duty of supervision as a person with parental authority to a supervisor who is the parent of a minor with the ability to assume responsibility;

A. If the damage was incurred due to a minor’s illegal act, and there is a proximate causal relation with the minor’s breach of duty by the supervisor, the supervisor shall be liable to compensate for the damage as a general tortfeasor.

(b) The case holding that a person responsible for joint tort committed by a minor as a general tortfeasor on the ground that he/she was negligent by significantly neglecting his/her duty of supervision as a person with parental authority to a supervisor who is the parent of a minor with the ability to assume responsibility;

Articles 750, 755(1), and 760 of the Civil Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 88Meu2745 decided May 9, 1989 (Gong1898, 886) (Gong190, 1129)

Plaintiff 1 and four others

Defendant 1 and one other Defendants, Defendant 1 et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellee-appellant

Gwangju High Court Decision 90Na1570 delivered on November 22, 1990

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendants.

The Defendants’ grounds of appeal and supplementary grounds of appeal are also examined.

In the event of damage caused by a minor's illegal act, if there is a proximate causal relation with the minor's breach of duty by the supervisor, the supervisor shall be liable to compensate for the damage as a general tortfeasor.

On June 14, 1986, the court below found that the joint defendant 1 and 2 did not have any duty to care for the defendant 2 as well as the defendant 1 and the defendant 2, who had no such duty to care for the defendant 1 and who had no such duty to care for the defendant 2. The court below's reasoning that the defendant 1 and the defendant 2 had no such duty to care for the defendant 1 and that they had no such duty to care for the defendant 2 as well as for the defendant 1 and that they had no such duty to care for the defendant 2. The court below found that the defendant 1 and the defendant 2 had no such duty to care for the defendant 1 and that they had no such duty to care for the defendant 2, and that they had no such duty to care for the defendant 1 and had no such duty to care for the defendant 2, and that they had no such duty to care for the defendant 1 and the defendant 2, who had no such duty to care for the defendant 1 and the defendant 1 and the defendant 2, respectively.

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.

Justices Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Justice)