The case holding that the rate of offsetting negligence is different after recognizing the liability for damages of the head of a kindergarten who has dumped the cooling house without permission and the head of a kindergarten who has neglected the cooling house when the young children aged 5 live alone while walking alone.

The case holding that the duty of care is to prevent the occurrence of an accident by taking measures to prevent the occurrence of an accident even if an infant under the condition that the infant under the condition that the infant under the condition that the infant under the condition that the infant under the condition that the infant under the condition that the infant under the condition that the infant under the condition that the infant under the condition that the infant under the condition that the infant under the condition that the infant under the condition that the infant under the condition that the infant under the condition that the infant under the condition that the infant under the condition that the infant under the condition that the infant under the condition that the infant under the condition that the infant under the condition that the infant under the condition that the infant under the condition that the infant under the condition that the infant under the condition that the infant under the condition that the infant under the condition that the infant under the condition that the infant under the condition that the infant under the condition that the infant under the condition that the infant under the condition that the infant under the condition that the infant under the condition that the infant under the condition was throw away was under the condition that the infant under the condition that he was under the condition that the infant under the condition was included in the accident.

Articles 750, 760, 763, and 393 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff 1 and two others (Seoul General Law Firm, Attorneys Cho Jae-py, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and one other (Law Firm Han, Attorneys Yoon Woo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

1. A. Defendant 1: 23,880,724 won against Plaintiff 1; 1,000,000 won against Plaintiff 2; and 23,280,724 won against Plaintiff 3;

B. Defendant 2 shall pay to Plaintiff 1 an amount equivalent to KRW 19,660,543, KRW 1,00,00 to Plaintiff 2, KRW 19,210,543, and KRW 19,210 to Plaintiff 3, and KRW 5% per annum from January 14, 1995 to April 30, 196, and KRW 25% per annum from May 1, 1996 to the date of full payment.

2. The plaintiffs' remaining claims are dismissed.

3. The costs of the lawsuit are divided into two parts, one of which is the plaintiffs, and the other is the defendants' own burden.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The defendants, from April 14, 1994 to the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, shall pay to each of the plaintiffs 1 56,92,593 won, 2,000 won to the plaintiff 2,00 won, 55,492,593 won to the plaintiff 3, and 50 percent per annum to the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 25 percent per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

(a) recognised facts;

The following facts may be acknowledged if there is no dispute between the parties, or if Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, evidence Nos. 9-1 through 11, evidence Nos. 20 (not including parts of evidence Nos. 11-13 and 17, each part of evidence Nos. 11-13 and 17, evidence Nos. 13, 14, and Eul evidence Nos. 2-1, 2, and 3, and each part of evidence Nos. 2-1, 2, and 3, evidence Nos. 11-13, 17, and evidence Nos. 11-1 through 1-28, and evidence Nos. 13 and 1-1 of evidence No. 1-28, 13, 201, and 3 of testimony of Kim-ro are different from evidence No. 3, and there is no other evidence contrary to this.

(1) Defendant 2 operated a 40 young children's school in Gyeonggi-si (hereinafter omitted) with the trade name of a childcare center (trade name omitted), and sent her young children to the above her school at around 09:0 on a daily basis by using two wing vehicles for each her house at around 09:0, and the above her young children were sent to the school at around 15:0 after the end of the above her school.

(2) On April 11, 1995, Defendant 1 laid down without permission the truck loading box located in the space between the 357-1 location (name omitted) Dong (A) Dong Dong Dongdong and dry field without following lawful procedures under the Act on the Promotion of Saving and Recycling of Resources, which he owned and managed the 180 square meters (180 square meters, 60 centimeters in depth, and 57 square meters in weight) which he owned and managed. The truck loading box located in the space between the dry field and the 357 square meters in which he resides.

(3) On October 17, 1989, Nonparty 2 was born and was five years of age, and was admitted to the above infant center operated by Defendant 2 around March 1995, and Nonparty 2 was going to school by using the above string vehicle provided by the above string vehicle.

(4) However, at around 15:00 on April 14, 1995, the Nonparty: (a) discovered and play the said cooling house, which was disposed of in the vicinity of the instant (name omitted); (b) the said cooling house was placed on the ground that the said truck loaded chill, and if the body was shakend on the upper left and left by the chill, then the said Nonparty was playing around the said cooling house. However, the said chill was in a state where the said truck loaded chill, and the said chill was in a state where the body was shakened on the upper left and left by the said cooling house. However, while the said cooling chill was shakened on the left and left, the said Nonparty was divided into the said chill and the said chill, the body of the Nonparty and the Nonparty’s body were divided into the said chill and the said chill.

(5) Plaintiff 1 is the father of the above Nonparty, Plaintiff 3 is his mother, and Plaintiff 2 is his mother.

B. Defendants’ liability for damages

(1) Defendant 1’s liability for damages

Defendant 1 was negligent in failing to take measures to prevent the occurrence of an accident even if he did not dumping or dumping the cooling house at a permitted place in accordance with the Act on the Promotion of Saving and Recycling of Resources, and thus, Defendant 1 is liable to compensate for the damages suffered by the above Nonparty’s father, mother, someone or the Plaintiffs, due to the death of the above Nonparty, because he neglected his duty of care to prevent the occurrence of the accident even if he did not dumping or neglecting the cooling house at a permitted place in accordance with due process under the Act on the Promotion of Saving and Recycling of Resources.

(2) Defendant 2’s liability for damages

Defendant 2’s operation of the above young children cannot be deemed as merely based on any of the following subparagraphs, and it is intended to protect young children from accidents that may occur in the event that young children are going to and going to walk, which is part of the above defendant’s obligations that are impliedly included in the contract concluded for the above young children. As above, among the accidents that intend to prevent them from going to and going to go to, it is reasonable to deem that not only traffic accidents, etc. but also traffic accidents, etc., but also accidents that may occur due to dangerous accidents that may occur in the course of getting to and from school, such as the instant accident, etc., and therefore, the above Nonparty’s death while entering the said cooling house was caused by the above Defendant’s violation of the duty to go to and go to, and thus, the above Nonparty is also liable for compensation for damages suffered by the Plaintiffs due to the death of the above Nonparty.

(3) As above, the Defendants’ liability for damages against the Plaintiffs is a kind of quasi-joint and several liability to the extent that the obligation overlaps, the Defendants should compensate for damages to each of the Plaintiffs.

C. Limitation on liability

On the other hand, in the occurrence of the accident of this case, the plaintiff 1 and 3, who is responsible for supervising the above non-party's parent, must return to the above non-party in Pyeongtaek, upon completion of infant members, using the vehicle of the infant members, and have been negligent in the duty of care to educate and supervise the non-party in dangerous goods such as the abandoned cooling house, but it is not sufficient to exempt the defendants from their liability, so it is not sufficient to take this into account in calculating the amount of damages to be compensated by the defendants, but it is reasonable to regard the above plaintiffs' negligence ratio as 60% between the defendant 1 and the defendant 2 as 70%.

2. Scope of damages.

(a) Actual income:

The above non-party's actual income equivalent to the monetary total appraised value of the capacity to operate the accident of this case is 81,403,622 won calculated at the present price at the time of the accident, based on the facts and evaluation as follows: (1) based on the facts and evaluation as follows: (2) the intermediate interest is deducted at the rate of 5 percent per month; and (3) the amount is 81,403,622 won.

(1) Facts and evaluation of the recognition;

(a) Gender category: South Korea;

Date of birth: October 17, 1989

annual age: the fifth and sixth months of age (at the time of an accident);

Name of rental: 62.65

(B) Place of residence and income status: Gyeonggi-do, which is a rural community area at the time of the instant accident (hereinafter omitted), and the wages of ordinary male and female workers engaged in rural daily labor on August 1995, which is the date of the said accident, are KRW 33,716 per day.

(C) Maximum working age: 444 months from October 17, 2012, when the above non-party completed his military service and becomes 23 years of age, until October 17, 2049 (the period less than a month is included in the convenience of calculation, hereinafter the same shall apply).

(d) Number of days of operation: 22 days (the fact that there is no dispute) per month;

(e) Livelihood balance: 1/3 (In the absence of any dispute)

[Evidence] Facts without dispute and the whole purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 7-1, 2, 8-1, 2, 12-1, and 2-2, and the whole purport of pleadings

(2) Gyeyang mountain (if the amount is less than Won, the amount less than Won will be rounded off for the convenience of calculation; hereinafter the same shall apply).

[gold 33,716 won 】 22 days 】 (315.2505 - 150.6329) 】 2/3} 81,403,622 won

(b) Funeral expenses.

Ender: Plaintiff 1

Amount of gold: 1,500,000 won (in the absence of any dispute)

(c) Set-off of negligence;

(1) The offset ratio;

(A) 60% between Defendant 1 and others

(B) 70% between Defendant 2

(2) mountain.

(A) Between Defendant 1 and Defendant 1

① The Nonparty

Gyeyangsan: Gross income 81,403,62 won x 0.4 = 32,561,448 won

② Plaintiff 1

Gyeyangsan: Funeral expenses KRW 1,500,000 x 0.4 = 600,000

(B) Between Defendant 2 and Defendant 2

① The Nonparty

Gyeyangsan: Gross income 81,403,622 won x 0.3 = gold 24,421,086 won

② Plaintiff 1

Gyeyangsan: Funeral expenses KRW 1,500,000 x 0.3 = gold 450,000

(d) Condolence money;

(1) Grounds for consideration: All the circumstances shown in the pleadings of the instant case, including the circumstances of the instant accident, the age of the said Nonparty, family relations, property, and education;

(2) The amount determined;

Nonparty: 10,000,000 won

Plaintiff 1 and Plaintiff 3: each gold 2,000,000

Plaintiff 2: 1,000,000 won

(e) Inheritance relationship;

(1) The Nonparty’s property heir: Plaintiff 1 and Plaintiff 3

(2) Inheritance amount;

(A) Between Defendant 1 and the above plaintiffs 21,280,724 won, respectively.

Booksan: (32,561,448 won + 10,000,000 won in daily income + 32,561,448 won in daily income) ¡¿ 1/2

gold 21,280,724 won

(B) Between Defendant 2 and the above plaintiffs 17,210,543 won, respectively.

Mountain : (24,421,086 won + 10,000,000 won in daily income + 24,421,086 won in daily income) ¡¿ 1/2 =

gold 17,210,543 won

3. Conclusion

Therefore, Defendant 1 is liable to pay 23,80,724 won in total to Plaintiff 1 (21,280,724 won in inheritance + 600,000 won in funeral expenses + 1,000,000 won in consolation money, and 23,280,724 won in total to Plaintiff 3 (21,280,724 won in inheritance + 2,000,000 won in inheritance + 9,000 won in total) per annum of 96% in total to Plaintiff 1 and 1,60,000 won in accordance with the above-mentioned Special Cases Concerning Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Inheritance; Defendant 2 is not liable to pay 9,00,000 won in total to Plaintiff 1 and each of the above 9,50,000 won in accordance with the above-mentioned Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Property; Defendant 1 and each of the above 9,500,000 won in total,00 won in inheritance.

Judges Yoon Jin-hun (Presiding Judge)