208 Maz. 19811 Compensation

1. Domination (64 years old);

2. Dominl (69 years old);

3 . 강◆◆ (90년생)

4. Gangwon △△△△ (94 years old);

5. Demotion (in 96 years of birth);

[Defendant-Appellant] Plaintiff 1

Defendant 1. Kim Man (75 years old)

2. Bront Korea (45 years old)

Defendant 1 and 2 Law Firm Hanra, Attorneys Go Jong-hee et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

3. Jeju Special Self-Governing Province.

Representative Training Advice of the superintendent of education

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 et al.

September 29, 2009

November 3, 2009

1. 피고 김◎◎과 피고 제주특별자치도는 각자 원고 강○○, 서□□에게 각 2,500,000원, 원고 강◆◆에게 500,000원, 원고 강△△에게 43,564,082원, 원고강 에게 500,000 원 및 위 각 돈에 대한 2005. 10. 1.부터 2009. 11. 3.까지는 연 5%, 그 다음날부터 다 갚는 날까지는 연 20% 의 비율로 계산한 돈을 지급하라.

2. The defendant Kim Il-young’s payment of the sum of KRW 3,00,00,00 to Gangnam ○○, and the sum calculated by the rate of KRW 5% per annum from September 2, 2008 to November 3, 2009, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

3. The plaintiffs' remaining claims against the defendants are dismissed.

4. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person.

5. The above paragraphs 1 and 2 can be provisionally executed.

1. 피고 김○○과 피고 제주특별자치도는 각자 원고 강○○, 서 , 강◆◆, 강소에

In addition, 10 million won, 82,153,417 won and 10 million won for each of the above △△△△△△ and each of the above amounts shall be October 2005.

1. From June 23, 2009 to June 23, 2009, 5% per annum and from the following day to the date of service of the application for modification of claims.

The judgment ordering to pay 20% interest per annum until the date of full payment.

2. The defendant Kim Jong-chul was served on the plaintiff Kang ○○ by the day following the service of the plaintiff's complaint and the complaint of this case.

The judgment ordering to pay 20% interest per annum from the date of full payment.

1. Determination on the claim against Defendant Kim Man and Jeju Special Self-Governing Province

(a) Facts of recognition;

(1) 서귀포시에 있는 ■■초등학교 6학년에 재학 중이던 원고 강△△은 2005. 10. 1. 수업시간에 같은 반 친구인 노▲▲와 아이스크림 문제로 말다툼을 하게 되었는데, 담임선생님인 피고 김◎◎은 노▲▲와 다른 학생들의 말을 듣고서는 원고 강△△에게 거짓말한다고 꾸짖었다.

(2) After that, in order to divide the species of the Plaintiff’s △△△△ in the course of taking lessons into account, the Defendant Kim Mandong had been in the process of taking lessons, and the Plaintiff’s Gangnam △△△△△ was not going out in the future, and again, the Plaintiff’s Gangnam △△△△ was in the direction of his △△△△△△, and without viewing the face of the Defendant Kim Mandong, the Plaintiff’s Gangnam △△△△ was in the future and the Defendant Kim Mandong.

(3) 그러자 피고 김◎◎은 원고 강△△에게 교실 밖으로 나가라고 한 후 부모님 께 전화하라고 하였으나, 원고 강△△은 복도에 그대로 계속 있었고, 이에 피고 김◎◎ 은 문가에 앉아 있던 같은 반 학생인 이▷▷에게 원고 강△△을 데리고 전화기가 있 는 1층까지 같이 갔다오라.'라고 하였다.

(4) 그래서 이▷▷은 복도로 나가 원고 강△△의 팔을 잡고 1층으로 내려가려고 하였으나 원고 강△△이 이▷▷의 손을 뿌리쳤고, 그 순간 피고 김◎◎이 복도로 뛰어 나오면서 ' 이 새끼 ! '라고 말하며 오른손 손바닥으로 세게 원고 강△△의 왼쪽 뺨 부위 를 1회 때렸고, 다시 '너 때리고 교사직 그만둔다. 라는 말과 함께 오른 손바닥으로 원 고 강△△의 얼굴 중앙 부분을 때렸다. 그 충격으로 원고가 난간을 잡은 채 계단 아래 로 내려가자, 피고 김◎◎은 쫓아가 다시 '울지 마라.'라고 하면서 원고 강△△의 얼굴 중앙을 때렸고, 그로 인해 원고 강△△은 치료가 거의 불가능한 좌측 고도 감각신경성 난청의 중상해를 입었다 .

(5) In relation to the above case, Defendant Kim Wil was indicted of serious injury, and appealed from Jeju District Court on September 6, 2006, after having been sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years. However, on November 30, 2007, Gwangju High Court, which is the cause of the trial, declared that the appeal by Defendant Kim Wil was dismissed. The appeal by Defendant Kim Wil was again filed on December 4, 2007, and the judgment became final and conclusive by dismissing the appeal by Defendant Kim Wil on December 4, 2007.

(6) 원고 강○○, 서□□은 원고 강△△의 부모이고 , 원고 강◆◆, 강◇◇은 원고 강△△의 누나와 남동생이며, 피고 제주특별자치도는 ■■초등학교를 설치 · 운영하는 지방자치단체이다.

The facts without dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap evidence 1, 2, 4 through 12 (including each number), Eul evidence 1-4, 6, 13, 14, 16, 17, and 32, and the purport of the whole pleadings

B. Occurrence of liability for damages

(1) Limitation on occurrence of liability for damages and liability

(A) As shown in the above facts of recognition, on the ground that Defendant Kim Mackn's horse does not listen to the horses on October 1, 2005, the Defendant Kim Mack's face at the time of the Plaintiff's Gangwon △△△△△△△△, the Defendant Kim Mack's tort was committed, and the Defendant Kim Mack's local government belonging to Defendant Kim Mack's public educational official, and the Defendant Kim Mack's local government is liable to compensate the Plaintiffs for damages incurred by the Plaintiffs due to the above occupational tort in accordance with Article 2 (1) of the State Compensation Act.

(B) However, as seen earlier, Plaintiff Gangnam △△△△ did not appear to have acted in bad faith and did not comply with the direction of the son, and thus, the Plaintiff’s mistake is deemed to have caused assault and assault by Defendant Kim Jong-tae. Since such mistake was a cause for the occurrence of the instant accident, it shall be considered in determining the scope of the Defendants’ liability for damages, but the degree of negligence shall be deemed to have reached 30% in light of the above factual relations, and thus, the Defendants’ liability shall be limited to 70% inasmuch as the degree of negligence is limited.

(2) The assertion and determination of Defendant Kim Man and Jeju Special Self-Governing Province

(A) Defendant Kim Mank and Jeju Special Self-Governing Province first, Defendant Kim Man and Jeju Special Self-Governing Province asserted that there was no proximate causal link between Defendant Kim Man and the injury of Plaintiff △△△△, even if there was no fact at the time.

However, in light of the aforementioned evidence, in particular, the overall purport of the argument in each of the statements in Eul evidence Nos. 1-4, Eul evidence Nos. 1-1, 17, and Eul evidence Nos. 1-1-32, as acknowledged in the criminal trial on defendant Kim Woo, as it is found in the criminal trial on the defendant Kim Woo, the defendant Kim Woo was at the hand floor of October 1, 2005, and the fact that the plaintiff △△△△ was injured by the plaintiff △△△△'s serious injury on the left-hand left-hand side, and thus, the above defendants' assertion is not accepted.

(B) Defendant Kim Mankn and Jeju Special Self-Governing Province following the fact that Defendant Kim Man and Jeju Special Self-Governing Province were at the time of △△△△△, they asserted that even if the Defendant Kim Man and Mank were to disregard and resist the speech of the Plaintiff, this constitutes a justifiable act that does not violate the social norms.

Therefore, in order for a teacher to be punished for a justifiable act, the physical punishment to be applied to a legitimate act, it must be limited to an inevitable scam because it is necessary for education and it cannot be corrected by other educational means. In addition, in such a case, there should be objective feasibility that can be acceptable by social norms in light of the method and degree of the physical punishment.

However, as seen earlier, it is not deemed that there was no other educational means such as disciplinary action or guidance in addition to physical punishment at the time, and it is also deemed that the defendant Kim Man's act is not illegal as a legitimate act, since it appears that the defendant Kim Man's act was found that the defendant Kim Man's △△△△ was when the plaintiff's 6th grade of the elementary school, which was merely the 6th grade of the elementary school, with emotional loss, and it is difficult to view that there was an objective feasibility that can be acceptable in light of social concept even in the method and degree

C. Scope of damages

[Ground of recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 17, and the result of the physical examination entrusted to the director of the Korean hospital, the purport of the whole pleadings

(1) Actual income

The damage of the loss of import equivalent to the total value of the gold total value of the capacity of the Plaintiff Gangnam △△△△△△ to lose due to the tort of the Defendant Kim Jong-kil is KRW 57,083,379, calculated at the present price as of October 1, 2005, pursuant to the Hofman Calculation Act, which deducts the intermediary interest at the rate of 5/12 of the month, based on the following [the facts and the content of recognition], and deducts the intermediary interest from the rate of 5/12 of the monthly interest:

A) Facts of recognition and evaluation;

(1) Gender, date of birth, age at the time of an accident, and name of lease: To be stated in attached Form (based on the calculation of the amount of damages).

② The job and the actual income status: The Plaintiff, as at the time of the instant case, had the city daily wage applied, but the unit price of the wage shall be 66,622 won, and the number of monthly working days shall be 22 days.

(3) Operating period: Two years from the time the victim reaches the age of majority, and 456 months from February 4, 2016, which became 22 years of age thereafter, until February 3, 2054, the maximum working age of which is 60 years of age.

(4) Sphere disability and labor ability loss rate: The left-hand chronological disorder, 20% old disability (H-1 on the Mabrid Disability Assessment Table - From 20 feet typ and occupation coefficient 5).

B) Calculation: 57,083,379 won [=6,622 wonx 22 daysx 194.729 (=5263-9.7934)]

X 20%)

(2) Medical expenses, etc.: Attached Form 3 [The sum of 865,310 won in the column for “recognition”]

(3) Fruits offsetting

(A) Liability ratio: 30% [refer to paragraph (1) above]

B) Calculation: 40,564,082 won (actual income 57,083,379 won + 865,310 won, such as medical expenses)x

70%

(4) Consolation money

A) Reasons: The plaintiffs' age, family relations, circumstances of accidents, and the part of the injury and the successor disability;

The above degree, degree of negligence of the plaintiff, and other facts shown in the argument of this case

Various circumstances

B) Determination amount: ① KRW 250,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

300만 원, ③ 원고 강◆◆, 강 각 50만 원

D. Sub-determination

그렇다면, 피고 김◎◎과 피고 제주특별자치도는 각자 원고 강○○, 원고 서미 에게 각 2,500,000원 , 원고 강◆◆에게 500,000원 , 원고 강△△에게 43,564,082원(=재산 상 손해 40,564,082원 + 위자료 3,000,000원), 원고 강조에게 500,000원 및 위 각 돈 에 대한 이 사건 사고 발생일인 2005. 10. 1.부터 피고들이 항쟁함이 상당한 이 사건 판결 선고일인 2009. 11. 3.까지는 민법이 정한 연 5%, 그 다음날부터 다 갚는 날까지 는 소송촉진등에관한특례법이 정한 연 20 % 의 각 비율로 계산한 지연손해금을 지급할 의무가 있다.

2. Determination on the claim against Defendant Kim Il-chul

(a) Facts of recognition;

(1) Defendant Kim Mandong appealed on September 6, 2006, after being sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years from the Jeju District Court for a serious injury, due to the fact that the Plaintiff’s △△△△△’s her her her her son’s her sclocked on the left-hand high-level sclockal sclock

(2) 피고 김◎◎의 동생인 김♥♥은 2006. 11. 10. 제주지방법원에서 피고 김◎◎ 에 대한 위 항소심 재판을 마치고 나오던 중 원고 강○○에게 달려들어 배로 밀다가 뒤로 넘어진 후 스스로 일어났고 , 한편 피고 김◎◎의 아버지인 피고 김●●은 당시 원고 강○○과 조금 떨어져서 이를 구경하였을 뿐 김♥♥을 일으켜주려고 하다가 원고 강○○으로부터 밀려 넘어져 상해를 입은 사실이 없었다.

(3) 그럼에도 피고 김●●은 2006. 11. 20.경 원고 강○○으로 하여금 형사처벌을 받게 할 목적으로 제주경찰서에 “피고소인 강○○은 2006. 11. 10. 제주지방법원에서 김◎◎에 대한 공판이 끝난 후 나오면서 김♥♥과 언쟁을 벌이다가 김♥♥의 복부를 주먹으로 쳐서 쓰러뜨리고, 고소인 김●●이 김♥♥을 일으켜 세우기 위해 허리를 굽 히는 순간, 뒤에서 손으로 고소인 김●●의 둔부 부위를 밀쳐 앞으로 쓰러뜨려서, 고소 인 김●●으로 하여금 약 50일간의 치료를 요하는 좌측 슬개골 골절상을 입혔으니 , 처 벌하여 달라.”라는 취지의 고소장을 제출하여, 원고 강○○을 무고하였다.

(4) On July 9, 2007, the defendant Kim Il-young was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years and 80 hours for community service in June, 2007 at Jeju District Court (2007 Godan969). The above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

【Fact- without dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap evidence 3, Gap evidence 14 (including provisional number), the purport of the whole of the arguments

B. Determination

(1) As such, it is sufficiently confirmed that the plaintiff Gangnam ○ was suffering from the mental pain due to the above accusation of the defendant Kim Il-Bale, the defendant Kim Jong-Bal's obligation to avoid the mental pain suffered by the plaintiff Gangnam ○, and considering all the circumstances revealed in the argument of this case, such as the age, property, occupation, education degree of the plaintiff Kang Jong-Bale's ○○, and the background and result of the defendant Kim Jong-Bale's non-defluence in the argument of this case, it is reasonable to determine consolation money which the defendant Kim Jong-Bal shall compensate for to the plaintiff Kang ○○.

(2) As to the foregoing, Defendant Kim Il-young’s right to compensation for the damage to Defendant Kim Il-young’s right to compensation for the damage to Defendant Kim Il-young’s Kim Il-young, and the Plaintiff Kang Jong-chul damaged the reputation of the Defendant Kim Il-young. In doing so, it is argued to the purport that it would be offset against the damage claim against the Plaintiff Kang Jong-young’s right to compensation for the damage to the Defendant Kim Il-young’s right to compensation for the damage caused by intentional tort under Article 496 of the Civil Act. Therefore, the foregoing argument in the Defendant Kim Il-young’s right to compensation is without merit.

C. Sub-determination

Therefore, the defendant Kim Il-young has a duty to pay to the plaintiff Kang Jong-tae, the amount of KRW 3,00,000 and damages for delay calculated by the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from September 2, 2008 to November 3, 2009, which is the date of the decision of this case, which is the date of the decision of this case, which is the date of the decision of this case, and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the date of full payment.

3. Conclusion

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

Multi-dryptability

1) In addition to the above treatment costs, the Plaintiffs also spent the amount of money listed in Nos. 1, 2, 6, 11, 12, and 13 as well as the amount of medical expenses.

However, in light of the date, details, and amount of the expenditure, the above medical expenses claimed by the plaintiff are deemed to overlap with No. 4.

We cannot accept the assertion.