208 Ghana 23596 Compensation (as stated)

○○ (the 89-years, Males)

Suwon-si, Suwon-si

Since the legal representative is a minor, the father of parental authority ○○, mother Kim-○

Attorney Park Jong-hoon, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Gyeonggi-do

Representatives of Office of Education Kim○

[Defendant-Appellant] Gyeong-gu et al.

[Defendant-Appellant] Park ○, ○○

March 31, 2009

December 22, 2009

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 3,00,000 won with 20% interest per annum from December 23, 2009 to the day of complete payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Ten percent of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff, while the remainder shall be borne by the defendant.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 60,000,000 won with 20% interest per annum from the day after the day after the judgment was rendered.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 15, 2007, the plaintiff who was enrolled in the third year of the Seocho High School in Suwon-dong, Suwon-gu, Suwon-dong, 00 - 00 - on March 18, 2007: around 50, after completing a meal at the restaurant building in the school, and moving to the school building, it is not a book prepared at the edge of the playground, but rather a book prepared at the edge of the playground. On the other hand, the plaintiff suffered an injury such as personal injury on the left-hand side, etc. (hereinafter referred to as the "accident of this case").

B. In the entrance glass of the restaurant building at the above school, the 'indoorization' has been attached with a phrase that the student does not enter the playground, but no measure has been taken to prevent the student from being affected by the reduction in the vicinity of the instant reduction.

[Ground of Recognition: Facts without dispute, evidence Nos. 3 through 5 (including each number), and evidence No. 1 to 10

(including some number) each entry, the purport of the entire pleading

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The principal of the school established and operated by a local government or the principal of the school or the principal of the school is obligated to protect and supervise students on behalf of the legal supervisor, such duty to protect and supervise the students under the Education Act, and is recognized for the students who are engaged in educational activities or are closely related to such activities, and is held responsible for the teachers, etc. to the extent that such accidents may normally occur even if the students were involved in an accident due to neglect of the duty to protect and supervise the students, and the possibility of such occurrence shall be determined by considering the student’s age, social experience, and judgment ability (Supreme Court Decision 96Da19833 delivered on August 23, 196). According to the above acknowledged facts, even if the above school is relatively mature high school students who were public officials, and were already aware of the existence of the instant reduction, the Defendant is obligated to compensate the students for damages caused by the above accident or to take measures to prevent the injury to the surrounding school by neglecting the duty to protect and install the obstacles.

B. Limitation on liability

On the other hand, at the time of the occurrence of the accident in this case, the plaintiff must strive to ensure the safety of the plaintiff as a student in the third grade of high school in the 17 years old and 6 months old, so that the plaintiff could not be affected by the reduction in this case, by neglecting the 17 years old and 6 months old, and by spreading the playground across the playground, which led to the accident in this case, and such negligence of the plaintiff is also the cause of the occurrence of the accident in this case. However, since the defendant's liability is not limited to the degree of exemption from the defendant's liability, it is reasonable to limit the defendant's liability ratio to 60% in light of the circumstances surrounding the occurrence of the accident in this case.

3. Scope of liability for damages

(a) Actual income;

The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff's actual income reaches KRW 90,838,345 on the premise that the plaintiff's loss rate of labor ability due to the accident in this case was 30%. Thus, according to the result of physical commission to the Samsung Seoul Hospital Head of this court, the plaintiff cannot predict the degree of physical disability at present in the plaintiff's loss rate of labor ability due to the accident in this case. Thus, it is difficult to predict the degree of physical disability at present. Thus, in light of the purport of the whole oral argument, it is difficult to conclude that the plaintiff can lose labor ability at around 30% in case of the loss of physical ability in the case of the plaintiff's loss of physical ability due to the accident in this case. However, in light of the purport of the above, it is difficult to conclude that the plaintiff's physical appraisal to the head of the Korea University Medical Hospital at issue (which does not constitute "the plaintiff's loss rate of labor ability" as to the plaintiff's loss of labor ability without any reason. Thus, the plaintiff's allegation in this case is without merit.

(b) aggressive damages;

(1) Written treatment costs: 358, 390 won

[Grounds for Recognition: Statement No. 7-1 to No. 8]

(2) The future treatment costs.

(A) According to the result of the court’s physical examination commission for the director of the Ansan Hospital at Korea University. (The plaintiff does not seek future treatment expenses for the part of the dental hospital) the plaintiff needs to pay 149,780 won per year during the life period as the part of the new wing line tracking test expenses, the part of the hospital at Korea Medical Center at Korea Medical Center at Korea Medical Center (the plaintiff did not prove that the plaintiff should receive special treatment). The plaintiff's annual compensation for delay from the day following the sentencing, and there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff has paid the above inspection expenses at the time of the closing of argument in this case, the above inspection expenses for the convenience of calculation shall be deemed to have been first disbursed on December 23, 209, and it shall be deemed that the plaintiff's interim payment at the rate from December 26, 2009 to December 36, 2009 to 16.

It shall be converted to the current price on the day following the sentencing under this Act.

(b) Calculation;

2. 2. 95, 600 won = 149, 780 won x 20 (the coefficient of head office-based, which falls under the original period from December 23, 2009 through December 23, 2009 to December 23, 2066, shall be limited to head office-based, 20 in order to prevent excessive compensation or excessive compensation).

(c) Set-off of negligence;

(1) Liability ratio: 60%

(2) Calculation: (Crain treatment expenses 358, 390 + future treatment expenses 2, 995, 600) = 60% = 2,012, 394

(d) Loss deduction:

School Safety Mutual Aid Association's compensation 4, 560, 410 won exceeds the above 2,012,394 won and thus is entirely deducted.

[Reasons for Recognition: Eul evidence No. 13, No. 14-1, 2]

(e) Condolence money;

(1) Reasons for consideration: The circumstances and results of the instant accident, the Plaintiff’s age, degree of negligence, the Plaintiff’s normal passing of the leisure sport course at the Gangwon National University; and as seen earlier, the amount of compensation by the School Safety Mutual Aid Association exceeds the positive amount of damages due to the instant accident (no room to deem that the said compensation was partially paid as consolation money) and all other circumstances shown in the argument in the instant case.

(2) Amount recognized: 3,000,000 won

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay at the rate of 20% per annum from December 23, 2009 to the day of complete payment, as requested by the plaintiff with respect to KRW 3,00,000, and the amount of damages for delay from December 23, 2009 to the day of full payment. Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant of this case against the defendant of this case shall be accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims shall be dismissed as without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Young-soo