[1] The scope of the duty to protect and supervise the principal of a school or the students of a school and the standards for recognizing liability for damages

[2] The case holding that it cannot be held that the teacher cannot be held liable for violating the duty of protection and supervision in a case where he assaulted and inflicted an injury on the part of the teacher during the break time between class hours

[1] The principal of a school or a teacher established and operated by a local government is obligated to protect and supervise students. However, 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, and it does not affect all the students' living relationship in the school, but is limited to educational activities in the school and living relationship closely indivisible. Even if they are living relationship within the scope of such duty, when and when educational activities are conducted, only if the accident is anticipated or predictability is likely to occur ordinarily in school life, the principal of a school or teacher is responsible for the violation of the duty to protect and supervise the students, taking into account the place, the offender's ability to separate the offender, the character and conduct of the perpetrator, the relationship between the perpetrator and the victim, and other various circumstances.

[2] The case holding that, in case where the first-year student of a middle school caused an injury on the ground that the first-year student of a school fells away from sewage, and caused an injury on the ground that the first-year student of a school fell under the city where he was drinking at the break time, the perpetrator has good academic records as the leader of the first-year class, and was positive in the school, and thus, the perpetrator did not have any duty of care or supervision over the victim as well as the victim, on the ground that the time immediately after the accident occurred, is in an inseparably indivisible relationship with the educational activities, quality, time, etc. for the following lessons, and it can be said that the act of the student within the class during that hour has a duty of care and supervision as a teacher, even though the perpetrator was rashing a higher level than that of ordinary school, and even if he was able to hear from the school teacher due to the nature of the perpetrator, it was difficult to see that the perpetrator's personality and behavior, the relationship between the victim and the victim, and the place of the accident.

[1] Articles 753 and 755 of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 753 and 755 of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 92Da13646 delivered on February 12, 1993 (Gong1993Sang, 960), Supreme Court Decision 93Da6058 delivered on August 23, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 2502), Supreme Court Decision 95Da313 delivered on December 26, 1995 (Gong1996Sang, 522), Supreme Court Decision 96Da19833 delivered on August 23, 1996 (Gong196Ha, 2853), Supreme Court Decision 96Da38070 delivered on February 14, 1997 (Gong197, 753)

Plaintiff 1 and four others (Law Firm Woo, Attorney Noh Dong-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and two others (Attorneys Kim Sung-sung et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Daegu High Court Decision 96Na465 delivered on September 5, 1996

The part of the lower judgment against Defendant Gyeong-do is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court. All appeals by Defendants 1 and 2 are dismissed. The costs of appeal against the dismissed appeal are assessed against Defendants 1 and 2.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the ground of appeal by Defendant Gyeongbuk-do

A. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the fact-finding and judgment of the court below are as follows.

(1) On March 1994, Plaintiff 1 and Nonparty 1 were students who were enrolled in the first and fourth grade high school under Defendant Gyeong-do, and Nonparty 1 was teachers for the first and fourth grade of the above school at that time. Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 were parents of Nonparty 1.

On August 30, 1994, at around 11:40, Nonparty 1 completed the three-party class classes at the first grade and fourth grade class of the school located in the Do-dong of Gu-si, Do-si, and completed the three-party class classes, and brought Plaintiff 1’s cleaning lock box while drinking urban communities, on the ground that Non-party 1’s washing-day and the head of Non-party Kim Young-gu and the head of the Gu-dong-dong caused the fall into the urban village, and caused the Plaintiff 1’s stress of the snow, thereby putting Plaintiff 1’s left snow part of the snow, and putting Plaintiff 1 into the an anti-party 1’s seat in the anti-party 1’s seat.

소외 1는 위 1학년 4반의 반장으로서 학업성적이 우수하고 매사에 적극적인 반면 성격이 거칠어서 평소 자기보다 약한 급우를 괴롭히다가 담임교사인 소외 1으로부터 꾸중을 듣기도 하였는데, 그 예로 1994. 5. 말경에는 소외 정찬우가 미술교사의 치마 속을 드려다 본 일이 있어서 미술교사의 지시에 따라 정찬우를 그녀에게 데려 가려고 하였으나 정찬우가 순순히 말을 듣지 않는다는 이유로 그의 턱을 쳐서 뒷머리가 벽에 부딪치게 하고 안경을 떨어뜨려 렌즈가 빠지게 하였고, 그 해 9. 초에는 축구를 하던 중 소외 조영탁과 부딪치자 "누구냐！"라고 소리치며 쓰러져 있던 조영탁의 얼굴을 발로 차서 볼이 퉁퉁 부어 오르게 하였다.

The non-party 1 was a first-year middle school of 13 years old and 4 months old at the time of the accident in this case as of April 14, 1981, and the plaintiff 2 and 3 were the parents of sternity, and the plaintiff 4 and 5 were their siblings.

(2) Based on the above facts, the court below found that the non-party 1 was the first-year student of middle school who left the age of 13 and 4 months at the time of the accident in this case, and there was no intelligence to change his responsibility for the act, while the nature of the non-party 1 and the non-party 2, as well as his parents, was in danger of exercising today's violence due to frequent savesing of the saves, etc., and thus, the court below held that the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were jointly and severally responsible for supervising and supervising the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 as the person responsible for the above duty to compensate the non-party 1 as the person responsible for the damages incurred by the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 as the person responsible for supervising and supervising the duty, on the ground that the above negligence of the non-party 1, 2, and the person responsible for supervising the non-party 1 was caused by the accident in this case.

B. However, although the principal of a school or teacher established and operated by a local government has the duty 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, but a duty to do so is limited to all their daily life relationship in the school, and it is limited to educational activities in the school and life relationship closely indivisible. Even if such duty is a living relationship within the scope of the duty, the principal of a school or teacher shall be liable for the violation of the duty to protect and supervise students only when the accident is anticipated or foreseeable to normally occur in school life (the specific risk of an accident) in consideration of the place, the perpetrator's ability to separate the offender, the character and conduct of the perpetrator, the relationship between the perpetrator and the victim, and other various circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Da13646, Feb. 12, 1993; 93Da6058, Aug. 23, 1994; 205Da3636, Dec. 36, 195

However, the break time immediately after the accident of this case took place is closely indivisible in terms of educational activities, quality, and time for the following lessons, and it may be deemed that the teacher’s general duty to protect and supervise the students within the class during that hours. However, as recognized by the lower court, even if Nonparty 1 was to take advantage of the nature of Nonparty 1, as the lower court acknowledged, Nonparty 1 did not have any duty to protect and supervise the students, it cannot be deemed that Nonparty 1 was in violation of the duty to protect and supervise Nonparty 1, a teacher at the first and fourth classes of the old U.S., and was active in the school, as the head of the team of the first and fourth classes of the old U.S., and was in conflict with Plaintiff 1 as the head of the school. In so doing, considering the character and conduct of the perpetrator, relationship with the victim, time and place of the accident, etc., the part of the accident of this case can not be deemed to have any error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the duty to protect and supervise Nonparty 1, the victim.

2. As to Defendant 1 and 2’s grounds of appeal

A. On the first ground for appeal

As seen earlier, Defendant 1 and 2, who are the parents of Nonparty 1, are liable for damages of the above Defendants on the ground that they were negligent in failing to prevent the accident of this case in advance, even though they have the duty of supervision that should provide general guidance, advice, etc. in order to adapt themselves to school life in a normal manner without any tort, such as aiding and abetting others. In such a case, the above judgment of the court below shall be deemed to include the purport of rejecting the Defendants’ assertion that the above Defendants, who are the parents of the above Defendants, are extinguished during school life and have the duty of supervision only for the school teachers. In addition, considering the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the judgment of the court below that there was negligence against the above Defendants is just, and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the duty of supervision by the supervisor. The ground for appeal pointing this out is not acceptable.

B. On the second ground for appeal

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, it is justified that the court below rejected Defendant 1 and 2's assertion that the act of Nonparty 1 by Nonparty 1 as an ordinary part of middle school's juvenile in the first and second years is not illegal, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the grounds for the elimination of illegality. Furthermore, the Supreme Court's precedents cited by the above defendants' attorney are different from this case, and it is not appropriate to invoke this case, and thus, it cannot be said that the court below made a judgment contrary to the Supreme Court's decision. The grounds for appeal pointing this out are not acceptable.

C. On the third ground for appeal

In light of the plaintiff 1's negligence in the occurrence of the accident of this case, the judgment of the court below which determined the set-off ratio as 40% as a whole is just, and it cannot be said that there were errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to offsetting negligence. The grounds of appeal pointing this out are not acceptable.

3. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against Defendant Gyeong-do is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. Defendant 1 and 2's appeal is dismissed in entirety as it is without merit, and the costs of appeal to the Supreme Court are assessed against Defendant 1 and 2, who are appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)