Supreme Court Decision 2026Do1036, July 16, 2026 [Bodily Injury by Occupational Negligence]

【Holding】

[1] Whether the director of a childcare center bears an occupational duty of care to take, either directly or by guiding and supervising childcare teachers, etc., the measures necessary to protect the life and safety of infants and young children at the childcare center and to prevent danger (affirmative) / Criteria for determining which infant or young child specifically becomes subject to the protection of the childcare center, and the method of determining the scope of measures necessary to protect the life and safety of infants and young children and to prevent danger

[2] In a case where the defendant, the director of a childcare center, while counseling the guardian of A (a one-year-old boy) in the director's office regarding A's enrollment, took A out of the office when A repeatedly tried to leave, told unspecified childcare teachers conducting a class in the living room, "Please watch the child," and went back into the office to continue counseling; thereafter A wandered around inside the childcare center alone for about 25 minutes, entered the unlocked kitchen, fell near a pot of hot yukgaejang (spicy beef soup) placed on the floor, and fell into the pot; and the defendant and others were indicted on the charge of bodily injury by occupational negligence for jointly causing injury to A, the Court held that the lower court's judgment acquitting the defendant was erroneous in its misapprehension of legal principles

【Summary of Decision】

[1] Article 2 of the former Child Care Act (before being amended by Act No. 19606, Aug. 8, 2023; hereinafter the same) defines "childcare" in subparagraph 2 as "social welfare services that protect and rear infants and young children in a healthy and safe manner and provide education suited to their developmental characteristics," and defines "childcare staff" in subparagraph 5 as "the director of a childcare center, childcare teachers, and other staff members who are in charge of the care and health management of infants and young children at the childcare center, counseling with guardians, and other duties such as the management and operation of the childcare center." Under the former Child Care Act, childcare shall be provided with the best interests of infants and young children as the primary consideration, and infants and young children shall be enabled to grow up healthily in a safe and pleasant environment (Article 3(1) and (2)). The director of a childcare center shall take general charge of the childcare center, guide and supervise childcare teachers and other staff members, and care for infants and young children (Article 18(1)), and childcare staff shall fulfill their duty of care to protect the life and safety of infants and young children and to prevent danger in performing their duties (Article 18-2(2)).

Considering the content and purport of these relevant provisions as a whole, the director of a childcare center, as a member of the childcare staff in general charge of the childcare center's operations, including the care of infants and young children, bears an occupational duty of care to take, either directly or by guiding and supervising childcare teachers, etc., the measures necessary to protect the life and safety of infants and young children at the childcare center and to prevent danger. Here, which infant or young child specifically becomes subject to the protection of the childcare center should be determined based on whether the childcare center has substantially assumed the duty to protect that infant or young child, and the scope of measures necessary to protect the life and safety of infants and young children and to prevent danger should be reasonably determined by comprehensively considering the age and developmental state of the infant or young child.

[2] In a case where the defendant, the director of a childcare center, while counseling the guardian of A (a one-year-old boy) in the director's office regarding A's enrollment, took A out of the office when A repeatedly tried to leave, told unspecified childcare teachers conducting a class in the living room, "Please watch the child," and went back into the office to continue counseling; thereafter A wandered around inside the childcare center alone for about 25 minutes, entered the unlocked kitchen, fell near a pot of hot yukgaejang placed on the floor, and fell into the pot with his entire body, starting with his buttocks; and the defendant and others were indicted on the charge of bodily injury by occupational negligence for jointly causing A injuries such as scald burns covering 40-49% of the body surface, the Court held as follows: considering the content and purport of Article 2 subparags. 2 and 5, Article 3(1) and (2), Article 18(1), and Article 18-2(2) of the former Child Care Act (before being amended by Act No. 19606, Aug. 8, 2023) as a whole, even though A had not yet been enrolled in the childcare center at the time of the accident, the defendant, who was in general charge of the management and operation of the childcare center, actively and substantially assumed the duty to protect A at least within the childcare area of the center by separating A from the guardian, who had visited with A for enrollment, and taking A into the defendant's charge, and thus A became subject to the protection of the childcare center; in light of A's age and developmental state, the defendant, as the director of the childcare center, had an occupational duty of care to ensure that A, who was only one year old, was actually and effectively protected and observed, such as by designating and assigning a specific childcare teacher, when sending A out into the living room of the childcare center, but violated that duty; and since the accident is recognized as having occurred due to the defendant's violation of the occupational duty of care, the proximate causal relationship between the defendant's occupational negligence and the accident cannot be regarded as having been severed merely because the occupational negligence of the cook and the childcare teachers concurred in relation thereto. For these reasons, the lower court's judgment acquitting the defendant on a different view was erroneous in its misapprehension of legal principles concerning the criteria for determining whether an infant or young child is subject to the protection of a childcare center, the existence of an occupational duty of care to protect the life and safety of protected infants and young children and to prevent danger and the scope of measures necessary therefor, and proximate causation in the crime of bodily injury by occupational negligence.

【Referenced Statutes】

[1] Article 2 subparags. 1, 2, and 5, Article 3(1) and (2), Article 18(1), and Article 18-2(2) of the former Child Care Act (before being amended by Act No. 19606, Aug. 8, 2023); Article 268 of the Criminal Act [2] Articles 17, 30, and 268 of the Criminal Act; Article 2 subparags. 1, 2, and 5, Article 3(1) and (2), Article 18(1), and Article 18-2(2) of the former Child Care Act (before being amended by Act No. 19606, Aug. 8, 2023)

(Source: Supreme Court Decision 2026Do1036, July 16, 2026 | Judicial Information Disclosure Portal, Precedents)

2026. 10. 14. · By Attorney Dongwoo Shin