손해배상(기)
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for dismissal or addition of a part of the following, thereby citing this case as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
The first instance court's second sentence " May 3, 2015" is " May 4, 2015."
The following shall be added to the seventh 17th sentence of the first instance court:
No. 4. Meanwhile, the Plaintiffs are liable for the injury or death of a patient by intention or gross negligence (hereinafter “instant exemption clause”). Article 20(2)4 of the instant contract provides that the Plaintiffs shall be held liable for the injury or death of a patient.
Article 6(1) of the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act provides that a standardized contract which has lost fairness in violation of the principle of trust and good faith shall be null and void. Paragraph (2) of the same Article provides that a clause which is unreasonably unfavorable to a customer, a clause which infringes on essential rights under a contract to the extent that it is difficult for the customer to anticipate the purpose of the contract in light of the circumstances, including the type of contract transaction, and that it is difficult for the customer to achieve the purpose of the contract. Furthermore, whether a clause is unreasonably unfavorable to a customer shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances, including the contents and disadvantages that may arise to the customer pursuant to the standardized contract, probability of disadvantages that may arise to the customer, impact on the transaction process between the parties, and relevant statutory provisions (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 90Meu23899, Dec. 24, 199; Supreme Court Decision 2013Da214864, Jun. 12, 2014;