Requirements for and burden of proof of liability of a supervisor for a minor who has the ability to assume responsibility.

If there is a proximate causal relation with the violation of duty by the supervisor, even if a minor is liable for tort on his own due to the ability of responsibility, if the loss is caused by the minor, the supervisor shall be liable for damages as a general tort, and in such a case, the existence of a proximate causal relation between such violation of duty of supervision and the occurrence

Articles 750 and 755(1) of the Civil Act; Article 261 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 84Da32473 delivered on July 10, 1984 (Gong1984, 1348), 91Da32473 delivered on November 8, 1991 (Gong1992, 84) (Gong1992, 1992, 1964), 93Da22357 delivered on August 27, 1993 (Gong193Ha, 2627)

Plaintiff 1 and three others, Attorneys Seo Young-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Defendant 1 and one other

Seoul High Court Decision 92Na52063 delivered on January 26, 1993

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Under Article 755(1) of the Civil Act, which is a special provision for Article 750 of the Civil Act, a person who is legally obligated to supervise a minor who has no capacity to assume responsibility under the premise that he/she is not liable to the minor. In such a case, he/she cannot be exempted from liability unless he/she proves that the person responsible to supervise the minor has failed to perform his/her duty of supervision. On the other hand, even if the minor has the ability to assume responsibility for tort, if there is a proximate causal relation with the minor's breach of duty of supervision, the person responsible to supervise the minor shall be liable to compensate as a general tortfeasor (see Supreme Court Decisions 91Da32473 delivered on Nov. 8, 191; 91Da37690 delivered on May 22, 1992; 93Da22357 delivered on Aug. 27, 1993).

The interpretation of the Supreme Court Decision 84Meu474 Decided July 10, 1984, cited by the theory of the lawsuit, is inconsistent with the above opinion, so it will be changed.

2. In this case, the court below cited the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. The non-party was a third-year student in high school who was at the age 17 and 9 of the traffic accident of this case caused by the non-party who was at the time of the traffic accident of this case, and was incapable of changing his responsibility for his act, and thus, the defendants, his parents, did not hold liability for damages under Article 755(1) of the Civil Act against the plaintiff 1 who was the victim and the remaining plaintiffs who were his family members. The non-party acquired the driver's license of this case 8 months prior to the occurrence of the accident of this case. The plaintiff's proof alone alone was negligent in supervising the above non-party, and it is not sufficient to find that the above accident occurred. Since there is no other evidence, the defendants dismissed all their claims by the plaintiffs since they did not have any liability for damages under Article 750 of the Civil Act, the judgment of the court below is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the supervisor's liability, burden of evidence or violation of evidence.

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Chief Justice Park Jong-young (Presiding Justice) (Presiding Justice), Kim Jong-won (Presiding Justice), Kim Jong-ho, Kim Jong-ho, Kim Jong-ho, Park Jong-ho, Park Jong-ho, Park Jong-ho, Park Jong-ho, Park Jong-ho, Park Jong-ho