A. Nature of the liability for damages by the legal supervisor of the incompetent person

(b) Requirements for exemption from liability of legal supervisor of an incompetent person;

C. The effect of receiving the damage compensation deposit in the name of the supervisor where the tort liability of the supervisor and the person responsible for supervision concurrently exists

A. Article 755 of the Civil Act provides for the statutory supervisor's liability for damages to a person under obligation to supervise a person under obligation to protect the victim, regardless of whether the person under obligation to supervise the victim had the capacity at the time of the commission of the act, the person under obligation to supervise the victim shall be held liable, and the responsibility of the supervisor shall not be compensated for the responsibility of the supervisor, but shall be accompanied by the negligence of neglecting the general supervision and education of the person under obligation to supervise the victim, and shall have

B. The negligence, which is the requirement for the liability of a supervisor for an incompetent person, is presumed to be negligent by neglecting the general supervision and education of the supervisor. Therefore, the supervisor cannot be exempted from liability unless he/she proves that he/she was not negligent in supervision.

C. In a case where the responsibility of a minor supervisor and a supervisor exist concurrently, the judgment that the victim received the money deposited with the compensation as part of the compensation for damages without the declaration of reservation that the victim would receive as part of the compensation for damages, and that the damage claim against the supervisor was extinguished, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the effect of receiving the deposit.

(b)Article 755(c) of the Civil Code;

Plaintiff 1 and five others

Gangnam-soo et al. and four others

Gwangju High Court Decision 82Na756 delivered on January 27, 1984

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court.

The grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 3 are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, since Non-party 1 and Non-party 2 collected evidences of this case, were the student status who attended the second grade of each high school at the time of this accident, and they were 4-5 female students including the plaintiff 1 et al. attending the third grade of middle school, and they did not enter the house again, the court below held that the non-party 1 et al., who was the non-party 3 et al., was removed from the duty of care of Non-party 1 and the non-party 2's non-party 4's non-party 8's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 4's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's.

2. Article 755 of the Civil Act provides that where an incompetent person is not liable for tort on the ground that he/she has no ability to assume responsibility, a person who has a legal duty to supervise his/her parent or other person shall be liable for damages unless he/she proves that he/she has neglected his/her duty to supervise his/her illegal act. This liability is a modification of the collective responsibility of family living cooperative body to a modern form of personal responsibility, and it is unclear whether the actor has the ability to assume responsibility, even though he/she does not have his/her own property, and even if he/she has the ability to assume responsibility, it is difficult to expect difficulty and invalidation in litigation because there are many cases where he/she did not have his/her own property and it is difficult to expect the victim to have the ability to assume responsibility at the time of his/her act. The person responsible for supervision shall not supplement the responsibility of the supervisor, but shall be deemed to concurrently have the responsibility

Therefore, the responsibility of this supervisor is not a negligence on the tort itself, but a negligence on the part of the supervisor, who neglected the general supervision and education of the supervisor, and thus, this negligence is presumed to have the same nature as risk liability, and therefore, it cannot be exempted from liability unless the supervisor proves that the supervisor did not neglect his supervision.

3. The court below acknowledged the plaintiffs' liability on the one hand with respect to the conjunctive claim based on the medical responsibility of the supervisor, but on the other hand, the plaintiffs' damage liability against the defendant 1 and 2 was extinguished by receiving 500,000 won each of them deposited by the supervisor non-party 1 and 2 as part of the damages compensation without the plaintiffs' declaration of reservation that they receive them as part of the damages. The defendant 3, 4, and 5's claim against the defendant 3, 4, and 5 was dismissed on the ground that the result of the examination of criminal records in the court of first instance alone is insufficient to support the defendants' failure to perform the supervisory obligation as alleged by the plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to recognize it. The court below erred in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the effect of the supervisor's liability and receipt of deposit money, in violation of the rules of evidence, and since the violation of law is considerably contrary to justice and equity unless the judgment of the court below is reversed, the appeal on this point is without merit.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)