[1] Whether the beneficiary or his/her guardian can be included in the beneficiary of medical care benefits under the Act on the Prevention of and Compensation for Accidents in School (negative)

[2] The purport of Article 35(2) of the Act on the Prevention of and Compensation for School Safety Accidents

[3] The case holding that, in case where a lawsuit was brought by an elementary school student Gap against Eul and Eul and his parents Byung against Eul's parents, etc. in a damages compensation lawsuit filed by the elementary school student Gap against Eul and Eul, the case holding that since the mutual aid benefits to be borne by the School Safety Mutual Aid Association (medical benefits) are the medical expenses to be borne by Gap et al., the consolation money paid by Jung et al. shall not be claimed to the School Safety Mutual Aid Association

[1] Articles 35(1) and 36 of the Act on the Prevention of and Compensation for School Safety Accidents / [2] Article 35(2) of the Act on the Prevention of and Compensation for School Safety Accidents / [3] Articles 35 and 36 of the Act on the Prevention of and Compensation for School Safety Accidents

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 2011Da85390 Decided February 9, 2012 / [1] Supreme Court Decision 2011Da77238 Decided December 13, 2012 (Gong2013Sang, 135)

[Judgment of the court below]

The Seoul Special Metropolitan City School Safety Mutual Aid Association (Attorney Kim Jong-chul, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2012Na3875 Decided July 19, 2012

Of the part of the judgment below against the defendant, the part ordering payment in excess of 456,774 won and damages for delay thereof shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Central District Court. The remaining appeals shall be dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Based on the evidence adopted, the lower court acknowledged the following facts: (a) Nonparty 1, who is the five-year student of the 5th grade elementary school in Gangnam-gu, Seoul; (b) around 12:50 on Sep. 10, 2009, her corridor was walked at the above elementary school; (c) the Plaintiff was faced with the face of Nonparty 2 in the fourth grade student of the same school; (d) Nonparty 1 and 3 and 4, whose parents were Nonparty 2, were the parents of Nonparty 2; and (d) the Plaintiff was liable for damages damages damages claim against the Plaintiff and Nonparty 5 (Seoul Central District Court Decision 209Da46432, Sept. 10, 209; and (e) the lower court determined that the Plaintiff was liable for damages claim against each of the above 5th grade students of the 4th grade student of the same school; and (e) the Plaintiff was 10% of the total amount paid to Nonparty 2, 401 and Nonparty 150% of the above judgment of the Plaintiff 2.

Furthermore, pursuant to Article 35 of the Act on the Prevention of and Compensation for School Safety Accidents (hereinafter “School Safety Accident Compensation Act”), the lower court determined that the Defendant’s deductible benefit with respect to the instant accident was determined as KRW 2,269,156 that was paid by the Plaintiff in accordance with the judgment in a prior suit. Meanwhile, the “person who caused school safety accidents” under Article 44(1) of the School Safety Accident Compensation Act should be construed as the “person who directly caused the school safety accidents” and Article 44(1) of the same Act should be construed as the “person who directly caused the school safety accidents,” and Article 44(1)1 of the same Act shall not apply to the right of reimbursement of the school safety mutual aid association (hereinafter “Mutual Aid Association”) for the parents of the students with disabilities who directly caused the school safety accidents. As such, in this case, the Defendant’s claim against the Plaintiff cannot be permitted as long as Nonparty 2 passed.

2. However, it is difficult to accept the judgment of the court below that the defendant's deductible benefits were determined as KRW 2,269,156 according to the judgment of the court below pursuant to Article 35 of the School Safety Accident Compensation Act.

The system of mutual aid under the School Safety Accident Compensation Act differs from the system, purport or purpose of compensating for losses caused by unlawful acts, because it has the nature of directly compensating the beneficiaries for losses caused by school safety accidents in terms of social security. Meanwhile, Article 35(1) of the School Safety Accident Compensation Act provides that the Mutual Aid Association shall determine the amount of mutual aid benefits in accordance with the provisions of Articles 36 through 40 by type of mutual aid benefits under Articles 36 through 40. The types of mutual aid benefits are classified into medical care benefits, disability benefits, nursing benefits, bereaved family benefits, and the recipient, scope and payment standard of benefits by type. Of these, Article 36 of the Medical Care Benefits Act provides that medical care benefits shall be paid to the beneficiaries or their guardians when the beneficiaries are injured due to school safety accidents, and that medical care benefits shall be the amount borne by the beneficiaries or their guardians pursuant to the National Health Insurance Act among the expenses required for their treatment. This provision also applies to the case of the beneficiaries’ reimbursement under the School Safety Accident Compensation Act such as the amount actually borne by the beneficiaries or their protectors.

Furthermore, Article 35(2) of the School Safety Accident Compensation Act, notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (1) of the same Article, where the amount of compensation or the amount of compensation (including compensation for delay) to be paid to the beneficiary for the damage caused by the beneficiary due to the school safety accident by the court's decision, etc. is determined, the relevant amount of compensation or the amount of compensation (including compensation for delay) shall be deemed the amount of mutual aid benefits under this Act and shall be borne by the Mutual Aid Association. However, in light of the nature of the aforementioned system and relevant provisions, it is merely a provision to the effect that the mutual aid association should make the amount of compensation, etc. under the court's decision, etc. on the premise that the liability for mutual aid benefits arises, and it shall not be deemed that the said provision provides the case where the mutual aid benefits

However, according to the records, the judgment of the previous suit recognizes the responsibility of the supervisor for the minor who is not capable of changing the responsibility under Article 755 of the Civil Act to the plaintiff and the non-party 5 (the non-party 2). However, considering the negligence of the non-party 1, the liability of the plaintiff and the non-party 5 is limited to 70%, and the plaintiff and the non-party 5 are limited to 403,004 won for the medical expenses of the non-party 1 (the actual medical expenses 575,720 won x 70% x 70%), and the non-party 1's consolation money 1 and 300,000 won for the non-party 3 and 4's consolation money. Since the judgment of the previous suit was rendered on June 9, 2011, the plaintiff requested the defendant to pay consolation money to the non-party 1 who did not comply with the judgment of the previous suit, the judgment of the first instance court cannot be seen in light of the above legal principles.

Therefore, the defendant cannot be deemed to have a duty to respond to the plaintiff's claim for compensation with respect to the amount exceeding 53,770 won (=403,04 won x 0.05 x 0.05 x (1 year and 273 days from September 10, 2009 to June 9, 201 ± 365 days) x 403,004 won x 0.2 x 84 days from June 10, 2011 ± 365 days from September 1, 2011 ± 365 days from September 1, 201) added by the judgment of the previous suit rendered by the defendant, the beneficiary, and the damages for delay.

3. Ultimately, among the part against the Defendant in the lower judgment, the part ordering payment exceeding 456,774 won and damages for delay thereof is deemed to be erroneous in the judgment contrary to the Supreme Court’s precedents under Article 3 subparag. 2 of the Trial of Small Claims Act.

Meanwhile, the remaining grounds of appeal are not legitimate grounds of appeal in the instant case, which is a small amount of case, to the effect that the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the School Safety Accident Compensation Act, failing to provide explanation, omitting judgment, etc.

4. Therefore, the part of the judgment below against the defendant ordering payment exceeding 456,774 won and damages for delay thereof shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. The remaining appeals shall be dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Shin (Presiding Justice)