2. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 8,00,000 won with 15% interest per annum from the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment.

2. Purport of appeal

The same shall apply to the order.

A. On August 10, 2015, the Plaintiff, who was admitted to the Seoul detention center, was sweaked to the left-hand upper part of the sweak (26 No. 26) due to the sweaking of the stones that was mixed with boomed.

B. Accordingly, on the 11th of the same month, the Plaintiff demanded the head of the Seoul detention center to provide appropriate medical treatment for the young children dispatched to him. However, the head of the Seoul detention center only took measures such as prescribing a son in temporary care, not giving proper medical treatment to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff requested that the son be treated at her own expense in an external medical facility. However, without good cause, the Plaintiff neglected to give permission for more than four months so that the son becomes worse without good cause.

C. As a result, the Plaintiff’s condition aggravated, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 1,500,000,000, the sum of the expenses to be performed in the event that the Plaintiff generates the above baby, and the amount of KRW 1,50,00,00,00, the amount of KRW 8,000,00,00, which should be performed in the event of the Plaintiff’s occurrence of the above baby.

2. Determination

A. Article 30 of the Administration and Treatment of Correctional Institution Inmates Act (hereinafter “Punishment Execution Act”) provides that a correctional institution shall take appropriate sanitary and medical measures necessary for prisoners to lead a healthy life. Article 36(1) of the same Act provides that a warden shall have prisoners receive appropriate treatment if a prisoner is injured or suffer from a disease. Article 37(1) and (5) of the same Act provides that where deemed necessary for the appropriate treatment of prisoners, a warden may have prisoners receive medical treatment in an external medical institution outside the correctional institution, and where a prisoner receives medical treatment in an external medical institution due to an injury, etc. caused by his/her intentional or gross negligence, he/she may have the prisoner bear all or part of the medical expenses. In addition, Article 38 of the Punishment Execution Act provides that “If a prisoner wishes to receive medical treatment at his/her own expense from an outside doctor working for an external medical institution, the warden may permit such treatment in consideration of the opinion of a medical officer working for the correctional institution.”

In full view of these provisions, the State is obligated to provide prisoners with an opportunity to receive appropriate medical treatment through its own facilities or external medical facilities where prisoners are injured or suffer from a disease of a correctional institution. However, even in such a case, the State cannot interpret that the State is obligated to provide prisoners with an opportunity to receive medical treatment without compensation or at the expense of the State, regardless of the type of injury or disease of prisoners, regardless of the type of injury or disease of prisoners. In addition, Article 37(5) of the Punishment Execution Act clearly states that prisoners may bear medical expenses in the event of external medical treatment due to prisoners' intentional or gross negligence, and it does not provide that the State has the obligation to bear medical expenses in the case of external medical treatment which is not caused by prisoners' intentional or gross negligence. Accordingly, the scope and contents of "reasonable medical treatment" to be provided to prisoners should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the condition of disease and its treatment expenses, the period of confinement, the scale of the budget of the State, equity with other citizens, etc.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments as to the instant case’s health team, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and Eul evidence Nos. 3, the Plaintiff: (a) around August 11, 2015, the medical officer affiliated with the Seoul detention center explained to the medical officer affiliated with the Seoul detention center that the Plaintiff singing out of the meals was cut out; (b) as a result of the medical officer’s confirmation, that the sing out was recently formed, but whether the sing out was based on the existing singing out; (c) the medical officer affiliated with the Seoul detention center provided a temporary singing out of the Plaintiff’s singing out of the Plaintiff’s singing out and prescribing medical control; (d) the Plaintiff demanded a final singing treatment not ad hoc measure; (e) the medical officer affiliated with the Seoul detention center could explain to the Plaintiff that the singing out of the meals should not be conducted by the internal equipment of the correctional institution itself; and (e) recognize the fact that it was possible for self-medical treatment.

In light of the above facts, it is unclear that the time or reason for the Plaintiff’s dental surgery was interrupted because the Plaintiff’s oral care was poor, and the Plaintiff’s oral care was not good, and the type of the disease occurred to the Plaintiff, the treatment method and the treatment cost required by the Plaintiff, etc., it is sufficient for the Defendant to provide the Plaintiff with an opportunity to undergo treatment for the surgery from an external dental specialist at his/her own expense, and the Defendant cannot be said to bear the obligation to provide the Plaintiff with the medical care costs to the National Treasury for free treatment of the Plaintiff’s oral care or to bear the obligation to provide the Plaintiff with the treatment at its own expense.

In addition, even though the plaintiff filed an application for external medical treatment, there is no evidence to acknowledge the plaintiff's assertion that the head of the Seoul detention center neglected the plaintiff's state of dental care without just cause, and rather, even according to the plaintiff's own statement, the plaintiff did not file an application for external medical treatment after hearing the statement that the cost of KRW 500,000 or KRW 60,000 is incurred in the case of treatment of the lost baby at an external medical institution. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion cannot be accepted.

C. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s above assertion premised on the Defendant’s liability for damages is without merit without further review.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed due to the lack of reason, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with some different conclusions, so the part against the defendant among the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the cancellation part is dismissed.

Judges Park Byung-chul (Presiding Judge), Yellow ore ( unable to affix seals and seals on overseas education and training), and transmission forests