The liability of a minor who has intelligence to change responsibility and the duty of the supervisor to compensate for the tort;

Where a loss is incurred due to a minor's illegal act which has intelligence to change liability for the illegal act, if there is a proximate causal relation with the minor's violation of the duty of supervisor, the supervisor shall be liable to compensate as the general tortfeasor.

Article 755(1) of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Han-chul, Attorneys Park Jae-young and 2 others, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant) and 1 other (Law No. 4485, Feb. 1, 1980, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 2 others, Counsel for defendant-appellee

Defendant 1, Defendant 2

Seoul High Court Decision 90Na54041 delivered on July 26, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Where a loss was incurred due to a minor's illegal act with intelligence to change liability for the tort, and there is a proximate causal relation with the minor's violation of his duty as a supervisor (see Supreme Court Decision 88Meu2745, May 9, 1989). Although the non-party was 13 years of age at the time of the accident, and the non-party appeared to have the ability to assume liability for the tort, it is pointed out that the court below acknowledged the defendant, his father, without specifying this point, the liability for damages of this case. However, the purport of the judgment of the court below is that the defendant, who is the father of the above non-party, recognized the accident of this case as the accident of this case due to the negligence that the defendant, who is the father of the above non-party, was liable for damages to the defendant as a general illegal act, and this is just and this does not affect the judgment of the non-party as a supervisor.

2. In light of the records, we affirm the fact that the court below recognized the occurrence of the damage liability of this case recognized by its adopted evidence, and it is also acceptable to recognize the victim's negligence as 20 percent and calculate the amount of consolation money as stated in its reasoning, and therefore there is no violation of the rules of evidence in the judgment below.

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

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)