Liability for tort of a minor who has the ability to assume responsibility and liability for damages by the supervisor;

Where damage is incurred due to 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 the general illegal act.

Articles 750 and 755(1) of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Domin, Attorneys Park Jong-soo and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellee)

Plaintiff 1 and four plaintiffs, Counsel for defendant-appellee

Defendant

Gwangju High Court Decision 92Na6029 delivered on April 2, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. We examine the grounds of appeal.

In the event of a loss caused by a minor’s illegal act with the ability to assume responsibility, if there is a proximate causal relation with the minor’s breach of duty by the supervisor, recognition of the supervisor’s obligation to compensate for the damage is the consistent view of party members (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 90Da18500, Apr. 9, 1991; 91Da32473, Nov. 8, 1991; 91Da37690, May 22, 1992).

Comparing the evidence cited by the court below according to the records, it is recognized that Nonparty 1, a third-year high school with 18 years old as the defendant's infant, drinks with the second-year students of the same school, such as Nonparty 2, etc., after school hours, and the second-year students of the same school, drinks on three occasions each of the two-year students drinking the baby, and they caused the death of the baby, respectively, by using it, at one time in the same time, and the above non-party 2 caused the death of the mental shock by the heart pressure, and in light of the age and degree of study of the above non-party 1, he has an intelligence to change his responsibility for tort in light of the above non-party 1's age and degree, but under his full-time protection and supervision, he is economically dependent on the defendant, and thus, the defendant bears a general duty to supervise and educate the above non-party 1 and has no reasonable causal relation between the defendant's negligence and his ability to compensate for the damages caused by the accident.

2. In determining the scope of compensation for damages due to a tort, the court shall take such factors into account if there is a fault on the part of the victim or the victim, even though there is no party's assertion. Accordingly, the court below's measures taken by the plaintiff 1 or 2, who is in the status of protection and supervision as the parent of the deceased, not taking into account the deceased's negligence of not paying considerable attention to prevent the deceased from doing any act of drinking in mountain, and the deceased from doing so. However, even if both the deceased's own negligence and the above plaintiffs' negligence are considered at the time of the original adjudication, the court below's above 20% comparative negligence is appropriate in determining the scope of compensation for damages due to the accident of this case, and therefore, the court below's above misapprehension of legal principles does not affect any conclusion of the judgment. Ultimately, there is no reason to argue.

3. Accordingly, the appeal shall be dismissed and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice)