[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 recognition of liability

[2] The degree of duty to protect and supervise school students who were enrolled in a kindergarten where four years and three months have passed since their birth

[3] The applicable law of the public educational official's liability for damages caused by unlawful conduct in education

[4] The meaning of "serious negligence" where a public official is liable for an official's illegal act

[5] In a case where a kindergarten student died during his/her home due to a traffic accident, the case denying the individual's liability for damages and recognizing only the local government's liability for damages on the ground that only the passage room of the school teacher

[1] The principal of a school or a teacher has the duty to protect and supervise students. However, such duty to protect and supervise students on behalf of a legal supervisor such as a person with parental authority under the Education Act is recognized for students who are engaged in educational activities in a school or are in a living relationship closely related to such duties. The principal of a school or a teacher shall be held responsible for teachers, etc. to the extent that such accident may normally occur even if a student is involved in an accident due to his/her neglect of the duty to protect and supervise students, and the predictability thereof shall be determined by considering the student’s age, social experience, judgment ability, etc.

[2] A kindergarten student who has been enrolled in a kindergarten for a period of four years and three months after his/her enrollment and has no ability to take responsibility as well as his/her ability to adapt to kindergarten life for about 45 days after his/her enrollment in a kindergarten shall be deemed to have a living relationship closely related to kindergarten classes until he/she is able to safely return to school life, unlike other school students of various levels. Therefore, a kindergarten teacher shall be deemed to have a duty to protect and supervise a person with parental authority equivalent to the person with parental authority, who is the legal supervisor, from the time when the kindergarten student arrives at the kindergarten to the time when he/she can safely return to school life.

[3] The liability for damages caused by the illegal act committed by the public educational official in the course of education is the liability under Articles 1 and 2 of the State Compensation Act, and the State Compensation Act, which is a special law, is applied to the case where the public official claims that the other person was injured by intention or negligence in the course of performing his/her duties, and the provisions concerning

[4] In a case where a public official commits a tort in the course of performing his/her duties, not only the State or a local government shall be liable for damages caused by a tort, but also the public official shall not be liable for damages if he/she is a public official's progress. In such a case, a public official's gross negligence refers to a situation where the public official's gross negligence can be easily illegal, harmful, and even if he/she did not pay a considerable attention to the extent that it is ordinarily required, it means a situation where the public official's gross negligence could have easily been predicted

[5] In a case where a kindergarten student died of a traffic accident while returning home, the case denying the individual teacher's liability for damages and recognizing only the local government's liability for damages on the ground that it cannot be deemed that the school teacher actually neglected the attention required ordinarily as a kindergarten teacher by taking certain measures for returning home, etc.

[1] Articles 750 and 755(2) of the Civil Act, Article 2 of the Education Act / [2] Articles 750 and 755(2) of the Civil Act / [3] Articles 1 and 2 of the State Compensation Act, Article 756 of the Civil Act / [4] Article 2 of the State Compensation Act / [5] Article 2 of the State Compensation 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) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 75Da300 delivered on May 27, 197 (Gong1975, 8516), Supreme Court Decision 76Da206 delivered on December 28, 197 (Gong228Ha, 570), Supreme Court Decision 9Da1979 delivered on May 26, 197 (Gong1979 decided May 29, 197)

Han-Regular et al.

Defendant 1 Metropolitan City and one other (Attorney Kang Young-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Gwangju High Court Decision 95Na2691 delivered on April 4, 1996

The part of the lower judgment against Defendant 1 Metropolitan City is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to Gwangju High Court. The Plaintiffs’ appeal against Defendant 2 is dismissed. The costs of appeal against the dismissed appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. As to the violation of the rules of evidence

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the non-party 1, who was a student of the above school, was unable to attend the above school due to the above fact-finding, and the non-party 2, who was on January 5, 190, was on the day after the above school was closed for the above 4th time, and was on the day after the above school was closed for the non-party 1, the non-party 1, who was on the non-party 2, and was on the non-party 1, who was on the non-party 1, who was on the non-party 1, and was on the non-party 2, who was on the non-party 1, who was on the non-party 1, who was on the non-party 1, who was on the non-party 1, who was on the non-party 1, who was on the non-party 1, who was on the non-party 1, who was on the non-party 1, who was on the non-party 2's right side.

2. As to the misapprehension of legal principle

A. The principal of a school or teacher established and operated by a local government is obligated to protect and supervise students, and such duty to protect and supervise students is recognized as an obligation to protect and supervise students on behalf of a legal supervisor, such as a person with parental authority, and is also recognized as an obligation to protect and supervise students in a living relationship that is in educational activities in the school or closely related thereto, and the responsibility of teachers, etc. is recognized as a liability only to the extent that such accident may normally occur even if a student suffers from an accident due to his neglect of the duty to protect and supervise students, and the predictability thereof shall be determined in consideration of the student’s age, social experience, and judgment ability (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Da13646, Feb. 12, 1993; 93Da60588, Aug. 23, 1994; 95Da313, Dec. 26, 1995).

According to the facts duly admitted by the court below, the above deceased left for four years and three months after his birth at the time of the accident in this case, and there was no ability to take responsibility as well as mental capacity. On March 5, 1994, before the accident in this case occurred, the above deceased was admitted to the above kindergarten on March 5, 1994, which was about 45 days before the accident in this case, and was unable to adapt to the kindergarten life. Unlike the case of students in other various levels of schools, in case of the above students in this age group, they shall be deemed to have a living relationship closely connected to the kindergarten curriculum until they are able to safely return to their school, and therefore, the above deceased 2, a teacher attending a kindergarten, who is a teacher of the above deceased, shall have the duty to protect and supervise the above deceased's children equivalent to the person with parental authority, who is the legal supervisor, from the moment they arrive at the kindergarten to the situation where they can safely return to the kindergarten.

However, according to the facts and records acknowledged by the court below, the above kindergarten did not provide the above school children with the above school bus for their children, and for the above deceased to leave the above school bus at about 109 hours at the bus stops located away from the above kindergarten 16, and it can be seen that the above kindergarten bus is separated from the above kindergarten bus stops to the above school bus stops, and that the above school bus stops 12 and the passage of the vehicle is frequent. Thus, the above school bus stops after the completion of classes and the above school bus stops to the defendant, and the above school bus stops to leave the above kindergarten and waits until their parents arrive at the above kindergarten, and the above school bus stops to leave the above 7 days after the above school bus stops, and the above school bus stops to ensure that the above school bus stops to leave the above 10 days after the above school bus stops, and the above school bus stops to take measures to protect the deceased's early destination without the delivery of the deceased's parents, etc., the court below did not have a duty to stop the school bus by the above 10 days.

Meanwhile, in light of the fact that the traffic of a bus near the point of the instant accident or near the bus stops is complicated and operated at one-hour intervals, and that the above deceased has no autonomous ability or judgment ability, and there is little social experience, etc., Defendant Park Gambling is liable for violating the duty to protect and supervise the instant accident, as the order of the above Defendant, if the above deceased is left alone on the bus near the bus stops, he would normally lead to the possibility of traffic accident due to his failure to comply with traffic regulations, such as getting on the bus where the above deceased is waiting for the bus stop as it is, and failing to return to his house, by failing to comply with the traffic regulations, such as getting on the bus near the road or near the above bus stops without permission.

B. Nevertheless, the court below rejected the plaintiffs' assertion that the above defendant 2 violated the duty to protect and supervise the above deceased's children on the day of the accident of this case on which the defendant 2 led the above deceased to the bus stop after the completion of the class, in a more mutually beneficial and mutually beneficial manner, and even if not, it cannot be deemed that the above deceased's failure to cross the road without permission at any other place than the stop place and caused the accident. Thus, the court below rejected the plaintiffs' assertion that the above defendant violated the duty to protect and supervise the above deceased's children. Thus, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the scope of the duty to protect and supervise the teachers of the kindergarten.

C. However, in the case of this case where a public official asserts that he caused damage to another person by intention or negligence as a result of performing his duties, the State Compensation Act, which is a special law, is excluded from its application (see Supreme Court Decision 76Da2006 delivered on December 28, 1976). In the case where a public official commits an illegal act in the course of his duties, a public official is liable for damages due to an intentional act or gross negligence. However, in the case of a public official, an individual is not liable for damages (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 90Da17972 delivered on May 28, 1991). In the case of this case, a public official is not liable for damages due to an intentional act or gross negligence, but a public official is not liable for damages (see Supreme Court Decision 90Da17972 delivered on February 15, 199).

However, according to the facts acknowledged by the court below, the above deceased was admitted to the above kindergarten, and up to 6,7 days from the date of the accident in this case, the kindergarten teacher took the direction of the above deceased et al. until the stop, and had the above deceased et al. go home, and the kindergarten students, including the above deceased et al. go home without any accident, but the above deceased et al. al. were able to go home. When the above kindergarten is admitted, the above deceased et al., provided traffic safety education from time to time to time to time to time to the school students and the school students were able to know that the school students are responsible for the parents' children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children were not neglected to leave the above kindergarten, and the defendant could not wait the above bus's children's children's children's children.

Therefore, since the above defendant did not have intention or gross negligence in performing his duties as a public official, the defendant 1 Metropolitan City, a local government to which he belongs, is liable for damages under Article 2 (1) of the State Compensation Act, and the above defendant is not liable for damages. Thus, the above defendant dismissed the plaintiffs' assertion that the above defendant violated the duty to protect and supervise the deceased, and the court below's dismissal of the plaintiffs' claim against the above defendant is just and the judgment below did not affect the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, among the arguments, only the part against Defendant 1 Metropolitan City is justified, and the part against Defendant 2 is without merit.

3. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against Defendant 1 Metropolitan City is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below. The plaintiffs' appeal against Defendant 2 is dismissed, and the costs of appeal against the dismissed appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices

Justices Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)