[Claim for Damages Lawsuit Favorable Judgment Case] Daeryun Law Firm Represents Client in a School Violence Claim for Damages Lawsuit and Obtains 12 Million Won

The client's claim for damages lawsuit arose from a fight between the client's child and a friend.

The client's child had a minor argument with a classmate, and the offending student, unable to control his anger, struck the client's child with his fist.

As a result, the lens of the eyeglasses the victim student was wearing broke, and the student suffered injuries to the eyelid and the area around the eye and underwent suture surgery.

The offending student went through the school violence review committee and received Disposition No. 1 and No. 3, and afterward, out of concern for secondary harm, no additional lawsuit was pursued.

Recently, the client moved, and wished to proceed with a claim for damages lawsuit against the parents of the offending student.

The client filed a claim for damages lawsuit against the parents of the offending student.

We will explain the legal principles related to this.

If the offending student is found to lack the capacity for responsibility at the time of the act in this case, then the offending student's parents, who are the persons holding parental authority, are persons with a duty to supervise the offending student, and they must compensate the amount corresponding to the loss suffered by the client's child and the client.

The client and the child emphasized that the treatment costs and the transportation costs for treatment incurred because of the offending student were considerable.

Moreover, they emphasized that the client's child suffered severe trauma from the offending student's assault and was experiencing great distress, to the point of being unable even to wear eyeglasses.

They emphasized that the parents, the clients, who watched this also suffered great mental anguish, and that the amount of damages the defendants should bear is therefore considerable.

The offending student knew that striking the face of a person wearing eyeglasses, like the victim student, could break the lens and cause a serious injury that could even result in loss of sight.

They emphasized that, despite this, the offending student aimed at the area where the eyeglasses were worn and struck with his fist, creating a dangerous situation in which the victim could have lost his sight.

The Supreme Court has held that ‘where loss arises from a tort by a minor who has the capacity for responsibility, the minor's parents are recognized as bearing a duty to compensate for damages as supervisory obligors.’ (See Supreme Court Decision 93Da22357, decided August 27, 1993)

It was argued that the defendants (the father and mother), who are the legal representatives and supervisory obligors of the offending student, neglected their duty to supervise and educate the offending student so that he would not commit a tort against another, and thereby brought about the result of the offending student committing bodily injury and destruction of property against the client's child.