A. Requirements for a supervisor’s liability for tort of a minor

(b) The scope of responsibility for breach of duty to protect and supervise school principals or teachers due to accidents in schools;

A. Under Article 755 of the Civil Act, a person who is legally obligated to supervise a minor without the ability to assume responsibility, or a supervisor of an incompetent person on behalf of the minor, is liable to supplement the liability on the premise that the minor is not liable. In such a case, the person responsible for supervision cannot be exempted from liability unless he proves that he/she has not neglected the duty of supervision. However, even if the minor is held liable for tort on his/her own due to the ability to assume responsibility, if there is proximate causal relation with the violation of the duty of supervision by the minor, the person responsible for supervision shall be held liable as the general

B. According to the Education Act, the principal of a school or a teacher’s duty to protect and supervise students on behalf of a legal supervisor, such as a person with parental authority, does not affect the students’ full-time life relationship in the school, but is limited to educational activities in the school and life relationship closely indivisible. Even in the case of living relationship within the scope of his/her duty, if an accident is anticipated or foreseeable to occur in the school life, the principal or teacher is liable for the breach of the duty to protect and supervise students only when the accident is anticipated or foreseeable to occur in the school life in light of the place / the offender’s distinct ability / the offender’s personality and conduct / the offender’s relation / the offender’s relationship with the perpetrator and the victim’s relationship, and other various circumstances. In the case of the above predictability, it is necessary to determine the scope of educational activities in consideration of the place / the offender’s ability to separate the perpetrator’

Articles 750 and 755 of the Civil Act

A. Supreme Court en banc Decision 93Da13605 delivered on February 8, 1994 (Gong1994Sang, 1000). Supreme Court Decision 92Da13646 delivered on February 12, 1993 (Gong193Sang, 960)

Plaintiff 1 and one other

Attorney Cho Yong-sik, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 93Na10124 delivered on November 5, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal No. 1 are examined.

In accordance with Article 755 of the Civil Act, a person who is legally obligated to supervise a minor without the ability to assume responsibility, or a supervisor of an incompetent person on behalf of the minor, is liable to supplement the liability on the premise that the minor is not liable. In such a case, the person responsible for supervision cannot be exempted from the liability unless he proves that he/she has not neglected the duty of supervision. On the other hand, even if the minor is held liable for tort on his/her own due to the ability to assume responsibility, if there is proximate causal relation with the violation of the duty of supervision by the minor, the person responsible for supervision shall be held liable for damages as a general tort (see Supreme Court Decision 93Da13605 delivered on February 8, 19

In this case, the court below held that the plaintiffs and the non-party 2, who are the parents of the non-party 1 and the defendant's employees, were negligent in supervising the above non-party 1 respectively, and as a result, the accident of this case occurred. In light of the evidence relations indicated in the records, the court below's recognition and decision of the court below is just and there is no reason to prosecute the above non-party 1 on the premise that the court below recognized the non-party 1 as

The grounds of appeal No. 2 are examined.

The principal or teacher of a school established and operated by a local government is obligated to protect and supervise students. Such duty to supervise students on behalf of a legal supervisor such as a person with parental authority under the Education Act does not affect all the students' living relationship in the school, but is limited to life relationship closely indivisible to educational activities in the school. Even if living relationship within the scope of such duty is within the scope of such duty, it is necessary to conduct educational activities at the school, in consideration of the place / perpetrator's separate ability / the offender's personality and conduct / relationship between the perpetrator and the victim, and other circumstances, it is predicted or foreseeable that the accident may normally occur in the school life only if the accident is anticipated or predictability (specific risk of the accident). The principal or teacher is liable for the breach of the duty to protect and supervise the students. The defendant is not liable for the breach of the duty to protect and supervise the students, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the plaintiffs' negligence, which is one of the joint tort 20-party 1, 1993.

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

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)