[2] Whether the hospital is exempted from liability for damages caused by negligence in case where the hospital explains that the hospital cannot be held responsible for the theft while urging the hospitalized patient to pay attention to the custody of valuables, such as valuables (negative)

[2] In urging an in-patient to take care of custody of valuable goods, etc., the mere explanation that the hospital cannot be held responsible for the theft cannot be said to be exempted from liability for damages caused by the hospital's negligence.

In a case where a patient is hospitalized in a hospital and received treatment, the hospital takes a comprehensive obligation for hospitalization, as well as the provision of accommodation to the patient, such as nursing and protection. In addition, the patient cannot carry essential items, etc. for his/her life while hospitalized and cannot carry all personal effects in a case where he/she takes a sick room for his/her personal care or for personal care. On the other hand, the sick room has relatively free access to the sick room and the theft of the king room occurred. Thus, the hospital has a duty to protect the patient's personal effects, etc. by taking appropriate measures necessary to prevent the theft of the patient's personal effects, etc. if it is impossible to control and supervise the patient's personal effects, by providing the patient with things with corrective devices that can safely keep the patient's personal effects, and by neglecting this, the hospital cannot be exempt from liability for damages caused by the theft of the patient's personal effects, etc. by entering the sick room without permission.

The lower court determined on March 21, 200 that the Plaintiff’s co-Defendant of the first instance trial, who purchased cash or released deposits using a credit card deposit passbook, concluded a service contract with the Defendant’s corporation to have security guards conduct patrols on each individual sick room, but did not have patrols, and that the time of the accident was less than 1:40 times, but did not take corrective measures against the Defendant’s disease, etc., on the following grounds: (a) on March 21, 200, the first instance trial co-Defendant of the first instance trial, who was hospitalized in order to undergo an inspection by the Plaintiff; (b) removed cash or released deposits using a deposit passbook; (c) on the part of the Defendant hospital, the Defendant hospital concluded a service contract with the Stex system and security service contract with its employees; (d) the Defendant hospital did not have patrols on the individual sick room; and (d) Defendant hospital did not take corrective measures against the Defendant hospital’s non-party’s non-party’s non-party’s non-party’s non-party.

In light of the above legal principles and records, we affirm the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below as just, and there is no error of law such as misconception of facts due to violation of the rules of evidence or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the relationship between hospital and hospitalized. The ground of appeal on this point is not acceptable.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

Even if the hospital explained that the hospital cannot be held responsible for the theft, it cannot be said that the hospital's negligence is exempted from liability for damages caused by the hospital's negligence.

The court below determined that the defendant hospital could not be exempted from liability as long as the defendant hospital's negligence is recognized at the defendant hospital on the ground that the defendant hospital's notice was not liable for damages due to force majeure without the negligence of the defendant hospital, and it did not hold the defendant hospital liable for exemption from liability. The court below determined that the defendant hospital could not be exempted from liability as long as the defendant hospital's negligence is recognized.

In light of the above legal principles and records, we affirm the fact-finding and judgment of the court below as just, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles concerning special agreement for exemption, as alleged in the grounds of appeal. The argument in the grounds of appeal on this point is not acceptable

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Ji-dam (Presiding Justice)