[2] In a case where Party A hospitalized in the hospital run by Party B while showing the symptoms of mental fission, and Party B claimed damages against Party B on the ground of violating the duty of care to protect patients, the case holding that the judgment below which did not consider Party A’s certificate in calculating the current labor disability rate due to the pertinent accident was erroneous in misapprehending the legal principles in determining the current labor disability rate due to the pertinent accident

1. As to the defendant's breach of duty of care

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the defendant was liable for damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the accident in this case, on the ground that there was a duty of care to anticipate the possibility that the plaintiff 1 may come into a dynamic act, such as marbing up on the roof of the hospital operated by the defendant, and to take measures, such as having the plaintiff 1 observe the plaintiff 1's marbling and marcing well, and allowing the plaintiff 1 to implement a pro rata program at a close level, but only 3 medical professionals were b0 patients, including the plaintiff 1, and the medical professionals were negligent in failing to perform the duty of care to protect the patients, such as failing to observe in advance the marcing of the marcing and marcing up the marc, beyond the marcing rail, and thus, the defendant was liable for the damages suffered by the plaintiffs.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the aforementioned determination by the lower court is just and acceptable. In so doing, it did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the duty of care of doctors or medical institutions, or by violating

2. As to the calculation of the loss rate of labor ability, if any, by the king evidence

A. In a case where the victim has already lost a part of his ability to work due to the pertinent accident, in order to calculate the degree of the loss of his ability to work due to the pertinent accident, it is necessary to find out the degree of the present loss of ability to work by aggregating the disabilities caused by the pertinent accident and the disabilities caused by the pertinent accident, and, here, it is necessary to determine the degree of the loss of his ability to work due to the king disability (see Supreme Court Decisions 94Da20730, Aug. 23, 1996; 2008Da73830, Feb. 12, 2009, etc.).

B. According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the records, the plaintiff 1 was hospitalized in the hospital operated by the defendant, considering mental fissionization such as exchange and network, and the defendant alleged to the effect that the plaintiffs failed to prove that there was no plaintiff 1's spatition, and that the mental fission of the plaintiff 1 should be taken into account in calculating the loss rate of labor ability. Thus, the court below found the degree of the current labor ability by aggregating the obstacles caused by the plaintiff 1's mental fissionization and the accident in this case, and accepted the reasons for the part of the judgment of the first instance which was not taken into account the plaintiff 1's spatition without making any decision as to the above argument, without considering the defendant's spatition. The judgment below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the calculation of the loss rate of labor ability when spatition exists, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations.

3. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below regarding the lost income is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination, and the defendant's remaining appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Poe-young (Presiding Justice)