2012 Gohap8271 Liability

1. Persons taking over the lawsuits with the net of 00;

(a) fixed**

(b) Kim*

2. Periodical**

3. Kim*

Address of the plaintiffs Daegu Suwon-gu

[Defendant-Appellant] Defendant 1

1. Social welfare foundation* Child care center;

Representative Director**

2. Steel*

3. Ma*

Defendants’ Address Daegu Dong-gu

[Defendant-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 3 others

March 18, 2014

April 15, 2014

1. The Defendants jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff 5,077,732 won, Plaintiff Kim** the amount calculated at the rate of 5% per annum from April 16, 2012 to April 15, 2014, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

2. The plaintiffs' remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, 50% is borne by the Plaintiffs, and the remainder is borne by the Defendants.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The defendant of the Gu office shall jointly and severally pay to the plaintiff 152,31,518 won, plaintiff Kim** 184,97,448 won, and each of the above amounts shall be paid 5% per annum from April 16, 2012 to the service date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. The defendant social welfare foundation*** Child care center (hereinafter referred to as the "child care center") is a corporation established for the purpose of the sound infant care and the self-reliance of the family at which the child is born due to the implementation of infant care services under the Infant Care Act, and the deceased 00 (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased 27 August 2009") was the first child of the child care center *** the child care teacher in charge of the deceased * the defendant * the child care teacher in charge of the deceased * the defendant * the child care teacher in the child care center * the child care teacher in the defendant *

B. On April 16, 2012, Defendant** Child-care center’s originals died due to the death of the Plaintiff’s father*, mother(parent), Plaintiff *, Plaintiff *, Plaintiff *, and Plaintiff ****, the mother(parent), who was sent by the 119 rescue team to the Magu-dong-gu-gu-gu-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-si in the instant case where the deceased was under medical treatment.

D. On the other hand, Defendant Gangnam*, G** did not look at the Mari-do, but did not immediately report the Mari-do to 119, and did not take appropriate emergency measures for about about 20 minutes without reporting the Mari-do to 119, respectively, on February 6, 2014, each credit cooperative was sentenced to 8 months on February 6, 2014 ( Daegu District Court Decision 2012 High Court Decision 7365).

【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap’s entries in Gap’s 1 through 4, 10, 14, 15, 59, 98, and Eul’s 1 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Whether he has violated the duty of care

1) Details of the duty of care

A) Since infants and infants have almost little ability to protect their own lives or bodies from external danger, they are bound to depend exclusively on persons with parental authority. If persons with parental authority entrusts infants and infants to child care centers, they take the same responsibility at child care centers. Therefore, infant care teachers in child care centers for infants and infants are obligated to protect and supervise their lives and bodies as equivalent to persons with parental authority.

B) Therefore, childcare teachers of childcare centers that nurture infants and infants should take appropriate measures to ensure that infants and infants do not food rapidly in the field of infants and infants, as well as to prepare for an emergency situation that may occur by taking measures to ensure that infants and infants do not food rapidly. Furthermore, in the event of an emergency, such as the instant accident, measures should be taken to immediately transfer them to emergency medical institutions, such as reporting 119, etc., and furthermore, they have the duty of care to take emergency measures, such as the Minimum Law,

2) Judgment on violation of duty of care

A) The following facts are revealed in light of the following facts: (a) the 12, 13, 21, 29 through 34, 38, 41, 45, 46, 48, 54, 59, 73, 80, 81, 84, and 85 of the date of the instant accident; (b) the 119 report on the date of the instant accident was received at 12:51; (c) the 119 emergency squad arrived at the site of the instant accident at 12:56, and sent the deceased at least 13:05,05, and the 13:00,000 accident occurred before or after the arrival of the deceased at least 4050 minutes before the arrival of the emergency room; and (d) the 19:30,000 square meters before and after the instant accident occurred at least before the arrival of the deceased; and (d) the 19:19,0000 por 100 of the instant accident.

나) 피고들의 주의의무위반 위 인정사실에 위 각 증거를 종합하여 알 수 있는 다음과 같은 사정, 즉 ① 피고 임**는 이 사건 사고 당일 피고 강**를 포함한 보육교사들에게 원생들이 따로 간식을 가지고 왔는지를 확인하고 안전하게 간식을 섭취할 수 있는 조치를 취할 것을 교육하지 않은 점, ② 피고 강**, 임**는 망아가 간식으로 청포도를 가지고 온 사실조차 알지 못하여 이를 잘게 썰어주거나 꼭꼭 씹어 삼키도록 일러주는 등의 적절한 조치를 취하지 않은 점, ③ 이 사건 사고는 적어도 12:30 이전에 발생하였고, 피고 강**, 임**는 스스로 망아의 목에서 포도를 빼내려고 20분 이상 지체하다 뒤늦게 119에 신고한 것으로 보이는 점 등에 비추어 보면, 피고 강**, 임**에게는 망아를 돌봄에 있어 그 주의의무를 게을리 한 과실 및 이 사건 사고 이후 적절한 조치를 취하지 아니한 잘못이 있고, 이로 인하여 망아를 사망에 이르게 하였다고 봄이 상당하다.

Therefore, the defendant Gangnam*, * as the tortfeasor himself, the defendant*** as the victim of the tort, the child care center*, the user*, the plaintiffs and the deceased are liable to compensate for the damages caused by the accident of this case, and the defendants' liability for compensation is in in in in in a non-joint and several relationship.

B. Limitation on liability

However, in light of the following circumstances, namely, that the Plaintiffs, the parents of the deceased, did not pay attention, such as sending the awareness of the fact that it appears that the occurrence of the instant accident was affected by the occurrence of the instant accident, the reason and circumstances of the deceased, and other circumstances such as the size and conditions of the deceased * in green house *, the Defendants’ responsibilities are limited to 60% under the principle of fairness (this is rejected).

3. At the time of the accident of the scope of the amount of damages, the current cost shall be calculated in accordance with the door-to door discount method which deducts intermediate interest calculated at the rate of 5/12 per month, and the calculation shall be less than a month for the convenience of calculation, and less than a won shall be discarded. In addition, the absence of a separate explanation among the claims of the Parties shall be rejected.

(a) Actual income:

(i) the facts of recognition and evaluation;

A) Gender: Women;

Date of birth: 2 years of age and 7 months of age at the time of an accident on August 27, 2009;

Name of rental: 81.34 years

B) Monetary assessment of operating capacity: The urban daily wage as of January 1, 2014, which is close to the date of closing argument of the instant case, is KRW 84,166.

(c) Deduction for living expenses: 1/3 of income;

D) Maximum working age: Before reaching the age of 60: Effective date: August 26, 2069

(ii)Calculation;

From August 27, 2029, when a deceased child becomes 20 years of age after the date of death, the actual income of the deceased child caused by the instant accident is 215,590,968 won.

A person shall be appointed.

B. Medical treatment costs: 14,334,070 Won paid by the plaintiff *

The Plaintiffs asserted that they provided nursing services for 363 days from April 16, 2012 to April 13, 2013, and sought the payment of nursing expenses. However, the fact that the deceased was hospitalized in a middle-patient hospital does not conflict between the parties, and that the nurse was provided full-time nursing services during the period of hospitalization in a middle-patient hospital. Therefore, the Plaintiffs’ above assertion is without merit (see Supreme Court Decision 87Meu1032, Nov. 8, 1998).

(d) Funeral expenses: Three million won paid by plaintiffs **

E. Limitation of liability

(i)liability ratio 60%)

(ii)Calculation;

A) Property damage of the deceased child: 129,354,580 won (=actual income of KRW 215,590,968 x 60%) Plaintiff Jeong* Property damage of the deceased*: 10,400,442 won [The funeral expenses of KRW 3 million + medical expenses of KRW 14,334,070]

(f) consolation money;

1) Reasons for taking into account: The background and result of the instant accident; degree of fault of the deceased and the Defendants; age and family relationship of the deceased and the children; and all other circumstances shown in the pleadings;

(ii) the amount recognized;

(a) Nets: 30 million won;

B) Plaintiffs: 15 million won each;

(g) Shares of inheritance;

(a) Inheritance shares: 1/2; and

2) Inheritance amount: 159,354,580 won (=129,354,580 won for the property of the deceased + 30 million won for the deceased)

3) Calculation: Each of the plaintiffs 79,677,290 won (=159,354,580 won x 1/2)

(h) Mutual aid:

1) The amount of KRW 50,000,000, insurance money paid to the plaintiff ** through insurance to which the plaintiff ** was a member of the childcare center * the plaintiff *** 64,677,290 won (=129,354,580 won x 1/2) for the property loss succeeded to.

2) Calculation: 14,677,290 won (=64,677,290 won - 50 million won)

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without any dispute, Gap 6, 11, 28 evidence, rule of experience, and significant facts in this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

I. Sub-committee

Therefore, the Defendants, as compensation for damages caused by a tort, have the obligation to pay the Plaintiff Y* KRW 55,077,732 (i.e., KRW 14,677,290 in the inherited portion of property damage + KRW 15,000 in the inherited portion of property damage + KRW 10,400,442 in the inherited portion of consolation money + KRW 10,400 in the inherited portion of consolation money + KRW 15,5 million in the property damage + KRW 94,677,290 in the inherited portion + KRW 79,677,290 in the inherited portion + KRW 15,00 in the inherited portion + KRW 15,00 in each of these illegal acts) and to pay damages for delay at a rate of 20% per annum as prescribed by the Civil Act from April 16, 2012 to April 15, 2014.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims against the defendants are accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as they are without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

The presiding judge, judge and auditor;

Judge power failure

Judges Lee Jong-soo