beta
Text
1. The Defendants jointly share the Plaintiff’s KRW 9,508,920, Plaintiff B’s KRW 900,000, and each money on August 25, 2017.
Reasons
Basic Facts
- On August 25, 2017, Defendant C (LL), Defendant I (MM) and Defendant F (N) who were enrolled in the second grade of the Sungnam Female High School had the face, body, etc. of the Plaintiff A (PP) who was enrolled in the PP high school in Sungnam-gu, Sungnam-gu, Sungnam-gu, Sungnam-gu, and had the face and body of the Plaintiff who was enrolled in the PP at the PP high school in drinking and drinking, and had the Plaintiff undergo approximately three weeks of treatment.
(hereinafter “instant tort”). - Defendant C, I, and F, who was a minor at the time of the instant tort, was sent to the juvenile department of the Suwon District Court due to the instant tort.
- The Plaintiff A spent a total of KRW 508,920 in the treatment costs of the injury inflicted by the instant tort.
- The Plaintiff complained of mental suffering from the instant illegal act and was consulted seven times at the Sungnam City Youth Counseling and Welfare Center from October 17, 2017 to December 5 of the same year.
- Plaintiff B is the father of Plaintiff A, Defendant J and K are the parents of Defendant I, Defendant G and H are the parents of Defendant F, and Defendant D and E are the parents of Defendant C.
[Based on the facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (if the number is included, the number shall be included; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the whole purport of the arguments, the above basic facts are as follows: defendant C, I, and F are liable to compensate for the damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the tort in this case. Even if a minor's own tort due to his/her responsible ability, if there is a proximate causal relation with the minor's breach of duty by the supervisor, the supervisor shall be liable for damages as a general tortfeasor (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Da6058, Aug. 23, 1994), defendant J, K, K, G, H, D, and E as their parents, with their children, and with economic support. Thus, there is no dispute between the parties to the protection and supervision relationship, such as neglecting the duty to protect and supervise the defendant J, K, G, H, D, the above defendant C, and CF.