2015 Ghana 21948 Compensation (as referred to in this paragraph)

ΔΔΔ

Law Firm 00, Attorney 000

1. Gwangju Metropolitan City;

Representative of the Council;

Attorney Park Jae-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant 000

2. A private teaching institute;

Representative President 000

Law Firm 000

Attorney 000

February 24, 2016

March 9, 2016

1. The Defendant Educational Institute shall pay to the Plaintiff 30,00,000 won with 5% interest per annum from May 29, 2015 to March 9, 2016, and 15% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant Gwangju Metropolitan City and the remaining claim against the defendant school foundation S Teaching Institute shall be dismissed, respectively.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Gwangju Metropolitan City shall be borne by the Plaintiff; one-third of the part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Educational Institute shall be borne by the Plaintiff; and the remainder by the Defendant Educational Institute, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The Defendants jointly serve 100,000,000 won on the Plaintiff and a copy of the complaint of this case.

The amount of money shall be paid at the rate of 20% per annum from the day of full payment to the day of full payment.

1. Facts of premise;

A. In 2012, the Plaintiff, A, C, D, E, and F were the first and fourth students of the ○○ High School in the operation of the Defendant Educational Institute S Teaching Institutes (hereinafter “Defendant Educational Institute”).

B. From April 201 to December 2012, A, C, D, E, and F committed assault against the Plaintiff at approximately 100 classes of the first and fourth class class of the first grade class of the fourth class of the school day through about nine months from around September 2012, and after the completion of the class of the fifth class, the Plaintiff committed assault or intimidation on the part of the Plaintiff, thereby forcing the Plaintiff to kill drinking water and bread at the shop. On November 10, 2012: around 30: (a) around 15 times the Plaintiff’s gabbbbbbbs, etc.

C. From March 2012 to December 2012, A committed assault by taking the Plaintiff’s face, arms, etc. into drinking several times in the above classrooms or skins, etc.

D. B around September 2012, while entering the Plaintiff’s music in the above classroom, brought the Plaintiff’s mobile device and used approximately KRW 500,000 to pay for the Plaintiff’s mobile device, and sold to the goods manager.

E. In particular, around 10:00 on September 10, 2012, B and C exceeded the Plaintiff’s parts of the Plaintiff’s arms, 3 times as drinking, and forced the Plaintiff to go up with intimidation and her part, and taken a video of the Plaintiff’s sexual organ using a mobile device camera. At around 13:00 on the following day, B and C received KRW 6,000 from the Plaintiff to delete the video of the Plaintiff’s 6,00 won.

F. On September 2012, 2012, K, the Plaintiff’s mother, found the Plaintiff’s walled to J, the first generation of the Plaintiff, consulted the Plaintiff with respect to the Plaintiff’s work of cutting off the mobile communication device. J notified the Plaintiff’s mother, and B provided the Plaintiff with the same mobile communication device.

사. A, B, C, D, E, F은 위와 같이 원고에게 폭행, 상해, 협박을 가하고, 금품을 갈취하는 등 집단따돌림을 하면서, " 선생님이나 부모에게 꼰지르면 죽을 줄 알아 " 등 협박을 가하였다 .

H. From March 2, 2013, even after the Plaintiff became the fourth grade of the second grade, A and B were bullying and continued to bullying, and around March 6, 2013, B took the Plaintiff’s friendly G and Kakaox app, who was attending the Plaintiff’s high school in Gwangju High School, and she took a bath in the Plaintiff’s mobile phone by cutting off the Plaintiff’s mobile phone. G was found in the Plaintiff’s class, and she was aware of the fact that M, who was the Plaintiff’s vegetable product, discovered G and that the Plaintiff was bullying due to harassment by B, etc., and that it was also heard from H, etc. accompanying the Plaintiff’s opposition.

B. A, C, D, and E are subject to juvenile protective disposition due to the crime of violating the Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and the Protection of Victims, etc. (hereinafter “C”) and the F was subject to non-disposition.

(j) As a result of the collective bullying by A, etc., the Plaintiff suffers from a disease with an unidentified depression.

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2 (including each number), Gap evidence 3, 4, and 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on claims against Defendant Gwangju Metropolitan City

The plaintiff asserts that the defendant Gwangju Metropolitan City neglected the duty to supervise and supervise the defendant school foundation S Teaching Institutes, or that the defendant school is jointly with the defendant educational institute and is liable to compensate the damage to the plaintiff, but there is no evidence to acknowledge the above assertion. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

3. Determination on the Plaintiff’s claim against the S Teaching Institute

A. The principal of a school or a teacher is obligated to protect and supervise students. Such duty to protect and supervise students is not a duty to supervise students on behalf of a legal supervisor, such as a person with parental authority, in accordance with the Education Act, and it does not affect all the students’ living relationship in the school. However, it is predicted that an accident may normally occur in school life in consideration of the time and place of educational activities, the offender’s ability to distinguish educational activities, the offender’s personality and conduct, the offender’s relationship, the relationship between the perpetrator and the victim, and other various circumstances (specific risk of an accident). If the accident is predicted or predictability (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 93Da60588, Sept. 23, 1994; 2005Da24318, Apr. 26, 2007).

B. In the instant case, six teachers, including A, had the intent and active nature of the Plaintiff from March 2012 to December 2012. From continuing to repeated and repeated, assault, bodily injury, intimidation, and attack, etc. In most cases, most of them were during class hours or break hours at most of the class class at the school, and the collective bullying in the school at the time became a serious social problem, J, the Plaintiff’s leader, was able to predict the fact that the Plaintiff was subject to collective bullying. If the Plaintiff’s mother, who was the Plaintiff’s mother, was interested in the character, social relationship, psychological condition, etc., and was aware of the Plaintiff’s interest, it appears that it could have prevented the Plaintiff from accompanying the Plaintiff’s collective bullying. In particular, the Plaintiff’s mother, who was the Plaintiff’s mother, was aware of the fact that the Plaintiff was receiving a request for consultation with the Plaintiff, and did not have to take other special measures, but did not have any suspicion that it was subject to the Plaintiff’s collective bullying prior to the Plaintiff’s request for consultation.

According to these circumstances, J, which is the plaintiff's first-year teacher, violated the duty to protect and supervise the plaintiff.

C. Although Defendant private teaching institute asserts that it fulfilled its duty to protect and supervise the Plaintiff since it provided special education, survey, etc. several times, it is difficult to detect group bullyings by means of special education, survey, etc. conducted formally for many students, such as the above special education, survey, etc., in light of the characteristics of group bullying, such as that the group bullying was carried out in another group, and the victim did not know about it in numerical value, and the victim did not disclose it. If it is known to the teachers, etc., it would be more severe bullying, and that other students who are not the perpetrator would be injured by the principal bullying, etc., and that it cannot detect group bullyings by means of special education, survey, etc. conducted formally for many students, such as the above special education, survey, etc., and it cannot be said that Defendant private teaching institute or J fulfilled its duty to protect and supervise the Plaintiff. Thus, the above argument of Defendant private teaching institute is without merit.

D. Since it is apparent in light of the empirical rule that the Plaintiff suffered mental pain due to the group bullying of A, etc., the Defendant Private Teaching Institute, the employer of J, is liable to pay consolation money to the Plaintiff jointly with the perpetrator A, B, C, D, E, and F pursuant to Articles 756 and 760 of the Civil Act. The Plaintiff is a first-year student of 15 years old high school, and the perpetrator of the group bullying of this case is six persons, and the period of violence and coercion is about 10 years, and the number of times is over 10 times, and the desire, apprehension, fear, etc. of the Plaintiff suffered by the Plaintiff due to constant and repeated assault by the same students was serious. In particular, due to the offender's group bullying, B, C took advantage of the Plaintiff's sexual image image and took it over to take it out, and 300 won, 00 won, 300 won, and 00 won, the Plaintiff suffered consolation money.

E. Therefore, Defendant Private Teaching Institutes is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act until March 9, 2016, which is the date following the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, as sought by the Plaintiff, from May 29, 2015, which is the day following the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, until March 9, 2016, and 15% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant Gwangju Metropolitan City is dismissed as it is without merit, and the claim against the defendant's private teaching institute shall be accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Jin Jae-in