beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
3. The judgment of the court of first instance is subject to Paragraph (1).
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning this case is as follows: (a) the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning this case is the same as the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the following part of the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance is amended; and (b) thus, it is acceptable
2. Part 3, Nos. 7 through 18 of the 3rd 7 to 18 of the 3rd 7 of the 18th Sheet 1) The plaintiff's assertion 1) The plaintiff's assertion 2 of the 16 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the 3rd Sheet 2 of the
(B) Since there was an obstacle corresponding to “a person who has an obstacle to the function of one part of the third part of a bridge” as provided in subparagraph 7 of Article 12, the Defendant is obligated to pay disability benefits and consolation money to the Plaintiff. (B) In light of similar statutes, the Defendant’s instant accident cannot be deemed to constitute a school safety accident, and in light of similar statutes, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff caused an obstacle as provided in attached Table 2. Even if such obstacle had occurred to the Plaintiff, the causal relationship between the disability and the instant accident cannot be acknowledged.
2. Article 2 subparag. 4 (b) of the School Safety Act provides for “activities conducted by the head of a school in the competitions, etc. approved by the head of the school” as “educational activities”. The former part of subparagraph 6 provides for “any accidents that occur during educational activities and cause harm to the life or body of students, teachers, or participants in educational activities” as “school safety accidents.”
However, according to the evidence No. 7-4, since the principal of the Yang Young-young Digital High School who was attending the Plaintiff applied for participation in the head of the Sung-nam District Office of Education of Gyeonggi-do, and the Plaintiff participated in the “Seongnam-siggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg