The legitimacy of comparative negligence set-off due to the parent's failure to protect and supervise the insured in case of an accident that happens in the Ethicale of a teacher entrusted with the education of such

At the time of the accident, the deceased, who was in five years and seven months after the accident, was the first teacher's child and was involved in an accident during the first teacher's education hours. In such a case, the duty of protecting and supervising the deceased is rather than to the plaintiff who is his parent, but rather, to the defendant, who is the president of the first teacher's school entrusted with the education of the deceased from the above plaintiffs. Thus, the reason why the parents failed to fulfill their duty of protecting and supervising the deceased cannot be offset against

Article 750 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff 1 and three others

Defendant

Daegu District Court (83Gahap1080)

1. The original judgment shall be modified as follows:

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 and 2 each amount of KRW 9,107,836, and to the plaintiff 3 and 4 5,00,000 each amount, and to the full payment, 5% per annum from February 12, 1983 to the full payment.

All of the plaintiffs' remaining claims and the extension claims in the trial are dismissed.

2. The plaintiffs' respective appeals and the defendant's remaining appeals are all dismissed.

3. All the costs of lawsuit are divided into three parts of the first and second instances, one of which is the plaintiffs, and the other is the defendant's own burden.

4. The quoted parts under paragraph (1) may be provisionally executed.

The original judgment shall be modified as follows:

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs 1 and 2 17,423,629 each money, and to the remaining plaintiffs 1,00,000 each money, and 25 percent per annum from February 12, 1983 to the full payment.

The costs of lawsuit shall be assessed against the defendant in both the first and second trials, and a provisional execution is declared (the plaintiff 1 and 2 expanded their claims in the trial).

The part against the defendant in the original judgment shall be revoked.

Each claim of the plaintiffs is dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs in the first and second instances.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

If Gap's evidence Nos. 2, 3 and 4, and Eul's evidence Nos. 3 and part of the result of the examination of the criminal records by the court below gather the purport of oral argument, the defendant works as a member of the (title omitted) church located in Daegu Jung-gu (name omitted) and concurrently holds the director of the children's ship attached to the church located in that church. On February 10, 1983, the non-party 1, who is the driver of the bus in Daegu (vehicle number omitted) in his possession, transported the above children of the above passenger's board to the above church and let the above children of the above passenger's board get off the above bus at around 40, and let the above children of the above passenger's board get off the above bus at the end of the above bus's night, and caused the above plaintiff's accident to be carried out after entering the above bus, and the defendant is not liable for the damages caused by the plaintiff's death and the above plaintiff's accident to the above 197 days's death.

(1) The above deceased did not suffer a fatal injury due to the above accident, and the doctor who was in charge of emergency treatment did not receive proper treatment and did not receive the death, and therefore, there is no causal relationship between the deceased's death and the above accident. According to the record verification that the above deceased's death was received by the above member, the above deceased's part of the records showed that there was a departure from a liver (a total of about 19cm) caused by the above accident, chilling, a chilling, a disguised chilling, a disguised chilling, a disguised chilling, a false chilling, and a double chilling blood (not less than 1/3 of total blood at about 400 cc.), but immediately after the above accident, the above deceased's death could not be acknowledged as being caused by the above accident's negligence, even if there was no error by the doctor who observed the above 7,8 hours after being sent to an emergency room at the medical center, and there was no other reason for the deceased's death.

(2) In addition, the above accident is not due to the negligence of Nonparty 1, but solely due to the negligence that occurred after the bus that the deceased was frightened with her friendship, and she entered the bus below the above bus. However, according to the evidence that the above accident was accepted by the members of the above party, the above accident was found to be due to the negligence that was caused by the deceased's failure to take care of the deceased's ability to take care of 3 and 4 her children to take care of the above bus at a safe place, even though the non-party 1 had a duty of care to take care of the bus at the end of the above church where she was her ageed, and the above accident was not caused by the plaintiff's failure to take care of the deceased's ability to take care of the deceased's remaining her children at the time of the above bus, and it can be recognized that the defendant's negligence was not caused by the plaintiff's failure to take care of the deceased's ability to take care of the situation at the time of the above accident.

(3) Finally, Plaintiff 1 and 2, who is the parent of the above deceased, was negligent in failing to perform their duty of protection and supervision, such as preventing the deceased from playing outside without permission, or preventing him from playing outside the said vehicle. However, according to the above evidence, the above deceased was found as a teacher teacher teacher teacher teacher teacher teacher at the above time of the accident at around 10:40 on the above day of the accident, and the above accident was caused by the above accident at around 10:0 on April 40, rather than the above plaintiffs who are his parents, the above deceased's duty of protection and supervision for the deceased. Accordingly, the above deceased's duty of protection and supervision is not against the above plaintiffs, but against the above plaintiffs, the above plaintiffs, the head of the above teacher teacher who was entrusted with education for the deceased. Accordingly, the above deceased is the defendant who is the director of the above teacher teacher

The above arguments are not acceptable.

2. Scope of damages.

A. The deceased’s lost profit

Without dispute over the formation of Gap's evidence 1, 5-1, 2, and 4-1, 5-1, 4-1 and 2-2, the above deceased's health was born on July 11, 1977 and the average remaining life of five years in Korea at the time of the above accident was 68.27, and the above accident was 4,000 won per day as of September 1983 (the plaintiff had to calculate the actual income of the above deceased's 6-1, 600 won per day on the basis of the above Gap's daily wage, but it is clear that the above Gap's evidence 1 and Eul's evidence 3 were 60-1, 600 won per day on the basis of the above 6-1, 600 won per day until the date of the above accident. The plaintiff's allegation that the above plaintiff's average remaining life was 60-1,600 won per day on the basis of 6-1,000 won per month after his birth.

(b) consolation money;

In light of the empirical rule, the above deceased's death before he turns 6 years of age, and the plaintiffs who are his bereaved family members, were seriously suffering from severe mental pain, and the defendant is obligated to receive monetary consolation. Considering all circumstances shown in the arguments, such as the background, result, property status, etc. of the above accident, the defendant should pay 3,00,000,000 won to the above deceased as consolation money, and 50,000,000 won to the rest of the plaintiffs.

(c) Inheritance relationship;

The above deceased’s claim for damages of KRW 14,215,672 ( KRW 11,215,672 + KRW 3,00,000) was inherited by the proportion of KRW 7,107,836 ( KRW 14,215,672 x 1/2) to the plaintiff 1 and 2 in relation to their status as seen above due to their death.

(d) Claim for the profit and loss deduction;

The defendant, representing the defendant, paid 53,460 won of medical expenses until the death of the deceased. The defendant's assertion that the amount equivalent to the ratio of the plaintiff's fault in the accident of the above money should be deducted from the above damages because it was the cost borne by the defendant that the plaintiff should have been borne by the plaintiff in the accident of this money, but any negligence on the part of the plaintiff cannot be recognized. Thus, the above argument cannot be accepted.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant has a duty to pay damages for delay with the rate of 5% per annum of the Civil Act from February 12, 1983 to the full payment system (the plaintiff sought damages for delay with the rate of 9,107,836 won per annum (7,107,836 won + 2,000,000 won), each of which is 50,000 won for the plaintiff 3 and 4 and each of the above amounts, after the date of the above accident (the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is reasonable for the plaintiff to claim damages for delay with the rate of 2,50% per annum of the Civil Act from February 12, 1983 to the full payment system. However, the defendant's appeal is justified within the above recognition limit, and each of these claims is without merit, and all of the remaining claims are dismissed as to the plaintiff 9's appeal with the assent of Article 96 (1) and 9 (2) of the Civil Procedure Act as to the remainder of the appeal by the plaintiff 1 and 9 (2).

Judges Cho Jong-soo (Presiding Judge) Kim Jong-sung