206Na16361 Compensation

Plaintiff 1

Since it is a minor, the legal representative mother plaintiff 2

Plaintiff 2

Plaintiffs’ Address Seoul

Seoul Metropolitan Government

Representative of the Office of Education

Law Firm Sam-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Attorney Kim Jong-he, Lee Jong-soo, Lee Jong-soo, and Lee

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2005Gadan167855 Decided January 11, 2006

April 4, 2007

June 13, 2007

1. The defendant who revoked the part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiffs falling under the following amount, shall pay to the plaintiff 1 3,362,340 won, 2,000 won to the plaintiff 2, and 5% per annum from November 5, 2003 to June 13, 2007, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

2. The plaintiffs' remaining appeals are dismissed.

3. The total costs of the lawsuit shall be divided into two parts, one of which is the plaintiffs, and the remainder shall be borne by the defendant respectively.

4. The payment portion of paragraph (1) may be provisionally executed.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant shall be revoked to the plaintiff 1, 69, 724, 681, and 5,00,000 won to the plaintiff 2; and

For each of the above amounts, 5% per annum from November 5, 2003 to the date of the first instance judgment, and the next day.

The payment shall be made at the rate of 20% per annum until the date of full payment.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The facts of recognition (1) Plaintiff 1, who was enrolled in the third grade 0 of 0 elementary school located in Seoul on November 5, 2003: 30 on November 13: 30, 2003, was killed in the knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife.

(3) Even before the occurrence of the instant accident, the students of the said school had often been slicked using a rail as Plaintiff 1. However, the above school teachers did not educate students of not specifying such acts, but did not attend the school with powders or knicks, etc., and provided general safety education, such as that they did not play dangerous games during easy hours or occupation time.

(4) On May 19, 2004, after the instant accident, the said school attached a safety net to the pole with respect to the rail installed between the first and second floors of the central stairs in the school building, and prevented the knivers from spreading by installing a protruding at certain intervals in the knive part.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence A 1 through 5, Evidence A 6-1 through 9, Evidence B 4, Evidence B-1 and 2-1 and 2-2, testimony and 00 of witness of the first instance court, the result of Plaintiff 1’s examination in the first instance court, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. Determination

In light of the above facts, the school teachers of the school established and operated by the local government are obligated to protect and supervise students, and according to the above facts, the above school teachers of the above school can be aware of the fact that students were slicking by using a rail, so that students could not engage in such act, and thus, the accident of this case occurred because they were negligent in taking measures such as thoroughly providing safety education so that students could not engage in such act, and installing slickings or taking other measures so that they could not lead to a railing. Accordingly, the defendant is liable for all damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the accident of this case as the employer of the above school teachers.

C. Whether liability is limited

On the other hand, at the time of the occurrence of the instant accident, Plaintiff 1 was able to fully know that there was a danger of falling in the case of a student in March 8 and 10 months of age as a third grade of elementary school in the case of the instant accident, and thus, it is necessary to refrain from the accident and promote the safety of oneself. However, Plaintiff 2 was negligent in neglecting the guidance on the safety education for Plaintiff 1, who was in turn engaged in the instant accident, and such negligence was also the cause of the instant accident. However, the Defendant did not have to be exempted from the Defendant’s responsibility, and thus, it is reasonable to limit the Defendant’s liability ratio to 40% in light of the circumstances surrounding the instant accident.

2. The scope of liability for damages;

(a) Actual income:

The method of deducting intermediate interest at the rate of 5/12 percent per month on the basis of the following facts of recognition and assessment of the amount of actual income sustained by Plaintiff 1 due to the accident in this case.

67,892,942, if calculated at the present price at the time of the accident. (1) The facts of recognition and evaluation (a) the basic facts of assessment (a)

Gender: Gender; Date of birth; December 14, 1994

The age at the time of the accident: The name of rental remaining between 8 and 10 months: 6.46 (b) Income and the operating period;

Plaintiff 1 was entitled to the income of KRW 1,156,870 per month ( = 52,585 wonx 22 days) on December 14, 2016, which was the day following the completion of the military service for two years, by December 14, 2016, as an urban general public book, from December 13, 2054 to December 13, 205.

(C) 32 percent of the ability to work permanently due to the deterioration of post-grade disability and labor disability rate;

【Ground of recognition】 Evidence A 1-1, Evidence Nos. 7 and 8-1, 2-1, 2-1, 2-2, the result of the commission of physical examination to the head of the relevant university affiliated with the university affiliated with the university and college of the first instance court, calculation 1, 156, 870 won x 0.32 x (99- 5938, 300) = 67,892, 942

Plaintiff 1 spent medical expenses of KRW 512,910 due to the instant accident.

【Reasons for Recognition】 Entry of Evidence No. 11, and the purport of the whole pleadings

(d) Limitation on liability (1) Defendant’s limitation on liability: 40% (2) : 27,362,340 won = (67,892, 942 + 512, 910 won) x 0.4)

E. The reasons for consolation money (1) : The plaintiffs' age and occupation, family relation, property degree, circumstances revealed in the arguments of this case, such as the occurrence of an accident and negligence on both sides, etc. (2) recognized amount

Plaintiff 1: 6,00,000 won

Plaintiff 2: 2,00,000 won

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 1 3,362,340 won ( = 27,362,340 won + damages for delay 6,00 won + damages for delay 6,00 won + damages for delay 2,00,000 won for the plaintiff 2,00 won and each of the above amounts for the plaintiff 2,00 won from November 5, 2003, which is the date of the accident of this case, which is the date of the decision of the court of the first instance, which is deemed appropriate for the defendant to dispute about the existence and scope of the obligation to perform, 5% per annum under the Civil Act until June 13, 207, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are justified, and the part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant is dismissed. Accordingly, the decision of the court of first instance and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Judges and equipment of the presiding judge

Judges Kim Jin-jin

Judges Lee Lee-chul