beta
(영문) 서울고등법원 2018.04.05 2017나2052130

손해배상(기)

Text

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance for the acceptance of the judgment is as follows. The parties to the judgment are as follows, except for the addition of the judgment of the appellate court or of the new argument, as set forth in paragraph 2, and thus, it is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance.

In addition, the witness E's testimony in the fourth part of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be the witness E's testimony in the fourth part of the judgment.

In the fourth part of the judgment of the first instance court, the "this court" in the fourth part of the judgment shall be "the court of the first instance".

The "the result of the plaintiff's personal examination" in Part 7 of the judgment of the first instance court shall be "the result of the plaintiff's personal examination of the first instance court".

Part 5 of the judgment of the court of first instance is "the testimony of witness G and the result of the defendant's personal examination" in Part 18 of the judgment of the court of first instance.

2. Judgment on the parties’ assertion of appeal

A. As to the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff did not know at all the risk of E’s qualification or rash treatment, and the instant rash treatment was not for verifying the rash operation of machinery or E, but for checking the patient’s body cream, procedures and preparation for future treatment, and measures before and after the rash treatment. The Plaintiff asserted to the effect that the Defendant’s limitation of liability should be less than 20-30% since the rash treatment was beneficial to the Defendant, and thus, the Defendant’s limitation of liability should be less than 20-30%.

However, according to the evidence revealed earlier, the Plaintiff appears to have been aware of the first introduction of the instant machinery at the instant hospital as an employee of the instant hospital and the first implementation of the rash operation through the instant machinery. The instant rash operation was not conducted at the level of welfare or service for employees, but was scheduled to first conduct the rash operation after the introduction of the instant machinery.