E-Government

Gangnam-gu Seoul place for delivery

Attorney Shin-○, Kim &O, Lee In-bok, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Gwangju Dong-gu

Representative Senior Director ○ ○

Attorney Park Ho-hoon, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

피고는 선정자 정○○에게 23,540,818원, 원고(선정당사자), 선정자 김■■, 김◆◆, 김◎◎에게 각 10,454,545원 및 각 이에 대하여 2013. 5. 24.부터 2018. 6. 22.까지 는 연 5% 의, 그 다음날부터 다 갚는 날까지는 연 15 % 의 각 비율로 계산한 돈을 각 지급하라.

2. The remaining appeals by the plaintiffs (appointed parties) and the designated parties and the claims extended by this court shall be dismissed, respectively.

3. Of the total litigation costs, 2/5 are borne by the Plaintiff (Appointeds) and the appointed parties, and the remainder is borne by the Defendant.

4.The payment portion of paragraph 1 above may be provisionally executed.

The court's reasoning for this part is that the "inland border inspection on the surface of the water" in Part 10 of Part 3 of the judgment of the court of first instance is called "inland border inspection on the surface of the water" (the "inland border inspection on the surface of the water"; the "inland border inspection on the surface of the water"; the "inland border inspection on the surface of the water"; the "inland border inspection on the surface of the water" in Part 11 of the same part is called "in the first city border inspection on the surface of the water"; and the "in part 12 of the same part is called "Ieol (the name of the medicine with propo ingredients; hereinafter referred to as "propool")", except that the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment. Thus, it is cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The defendant's negligence in medical practice

1) Relevant legal principles

When a doctor performs medical acts, such as diagnosis and treatment, he/she has the duty of care to take the best measures required to prevent risks depending on the patient’s specific symptoms or circumstances in light of the nature of the duties of managing the patient’s life and physical health. Such duty of care is based on the level of medical practice performed in the clinical medical field, such as medical institutions, at the time of performing the medical act. However, the level of medical care refers to the so-called medical consciousness generally known and known at the time of the medical act to the ordinary doctor, and thus, ought to be identified at a normative level in light of the medical environment, conditions, special nature of the medical act (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Da3508, Oct. 29, 2015).

2) At the time of the appeal, there is no negligence in the decision of the prosecutor at the time of appeal

A) The plaintiff's assertion

The Deceased was suspected of having a pulmic heart, and was a patient aged 70 who was blood fluent due to the loss of the function of the chronic bed, which was caused by the pulmonary fluoral flady. If the state of blood relationship and respiratory machines, such as the Deceased, would be bad, the deceased would have compared and balancing the effects of the cardiopulmonary scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scop

B) Determination

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged based on the record No. 6 (including family numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the result of the entrustment of medical records to the principal of the Central University Hospital of the first instance court on October 14, 2015, and the result of the entrustment of medical records on August 23, 2016 to the principal of the Korean Medical Association of this Court on December 6, 2017, and the result of the entrustment of medical records on January 9, 2018, and the overall purport of the theory of changes, the Defendant hospital’s negligence is difficult to deem that the Defendant hospital makes a decision on the deceased to conduct the said internal medical examination.

(1) The Deceased was treated as an alternative form of a new substitute body. While he was treated as a fluoral body, he was used in fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral. From May 18, 2013 to the Deceased, he observed the contents of the fluoral fluoral fluor inserted in the Deceased, and on the 21st day of the same month, the fluoral fluoral fluor was suspected of having a disguised fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluor. In such a case, the fluoral fluoral fluor’s fluoral fluor’s fluoral flusium was required.

(2) On May 13, 2013, the deceased transferred to the Defendant Hospital, using the control unit in mind of the deceased’s movement, and using the control unit until May 16, 2013, the Defendant Hospital used the control unit. After that, the deceased was classified as a patient at risk in the abortion and took care of a sudden movement of the deceased. At the same time, on May 23, 2013, the day prior to the implementation of the said emergency police station, the deceased was an easy attitude for the deceased to show a sudden move in the treatment process. In addition, even until May 23, 2013, the day prior to the implementation of the said emergency police station, the deceased did not appear to have shown a move in accordance with the order to answer. In such a situation, it is difficult for the deceased to expect the cooperation of the patient at the time of implementation of the emergency police station, rather than at the time on May 23, 2013, as well as on May 23, 2013.

(3) Although the Defendant Hospital had conducted the heart test prior to the e-mail test, there was no special e-mail test. Accordingly, it was found that there was no special opinion in addition to the e-mail room, even though the Defendant Hospital requested a compromise with the heart test with respect to the implementation of the e-mail.

(iii) whether there was gross negligence in propool administration - there is negligence

A) The plaintiff's assertion

In order to determine propool volume, the patient’s accurate weight was not confirmed. In addition, the Defendant hospital did not verify the deceased’s body weight, and the deceased’s body weight was measured by 75km before the Defendant hospital’s transfer to the Defendant hospital, the appropriate dosage of the deceased’s propool on the deceased is based on 19.25cm to 37.5cm from 37.5cm to 75cm (general high-ranking capacity). However, the Defendant hospital administered a propool of the deceased’s body size of 70m above this, which is a quantity of 70m., rather than the patient’s body weight. In addition, the deceased divided the heart-related and respiratory machine’s weight, and made the deceased administer the deceased’s propool in one way by making the deceased’s medical doctor to administer the deceased’s anesthesia and 70m, despite its reaction, the deceased’s medical doctor’s anesthesia and 70m.

B) Determination

The following facts are acknowledged according to the results of the request for the examination of medical records made on October 14, 2015 and August 23, 2016, as stated in Gap evidence 14, 15, 19, and Eul evidence 6, and the results of the request for the examination of medical records made on August 23, 2016.

(1) The deceased’s hospital records, nursing records, etc. (No. (No. 6) : ① there was no record by which the body weight of the deceased was measured before the examination of the deceased, ② around 11:00 on May 24, 2013, for the purpose of the examination of the truth-finding, the deceased was exposed to propool 70 meters on May 24, 2013, ③ there was no other indication on the method and speed of administering propool, and ④ the deceased was the patient of the end-time terminal.

(2) On May 7, 2013, the deceased’s survey site for nursing information (No. 23: the deceased’s body weight was 75km.

(2) The Korean Medical Association's recommendation on clinical trials for Council members and medical doctors of hospital level medical institutions (Evidence A No. 14): (1) In the case of patients of Grade 3 through 5 (in the case of patients of Grade 4 who are in the form of terminal flassium), comprehensive consideration may be given to 3-5 (in the case of patients of Grade 4, who are in the form of terminal flasium patient) under the U.S. anesthesia Science and Technology Classification Act based on their clinical capabilities and experiences; and (2) in the case of patients of Grade 3-5 (in the case of patients of Grade 4, who are in the form of terminal flasium patient), it is more safe to induce the reaction of patients by dividing the patient's quantity with a divided volume rather than by a one-time method based on the patient's body weight and extension, and in other words, it is most safe to administer the 'minimum inducement capacity necessary for the patient', and each additional medication should have a certain period of time after the administration (in flasium 20 to 30).

(3) An instruction for modification to the matters permitted for a single-pol system (Korean Uniform Adjustment) and a request for cooperation (Evidence A 15): (1) An instruction for use of a propool must be administered under the influence of a person who has received training in anesthesia, and (2) an administration at the time of administration to the aged shall be made under the supervision of the patient's condition, and (3) an administration shall be made under the carefully with regard to a patient of 55 years of age or older, such as a decrease in the capacity of the anesthesia city.

(4) A evidence No. 16 of this paper (Evidence No. 16): The administered volume of propool shall be administered at a healthy adult under the age of 65 by 30 to 40mg (or 0.5mg) at intervals of at least 20 seconds as necessary at intervals of at least 10 to 20m (or 0.5mg/km). Propool may have a large number of additionally administered when a propool is used solely after short of working hours, so that there may be a large number of times when a propool is used solely. In the event of poor condition of over 65 years of age or telegraph, the volume shall be reduced by at least 50%, or a standard method of petition or balanced method of professionalpoolization shall be recommended.

(5) Propool drug information (Evidence A No. 19): The fact that, in most patients, a single effect is induced if the patient's body weight (kg) is administered over one to five minutes, the patient's body weight is 0.5 to one meter per initial size, and there is a need to reduce the administration speed and capacity in the case of a patient of 3 to four levels under the U.S. Narcoticlogical Classification Act, and that, in the case of a patient of 5 years of age or older, the patient must make a reduction in general.

(6) On October 14, 2015 and August 23, 2016, the result of the first instance court’s request for the examination of medical records on the Head of the Central University Hospital (hereinafter “Central University Hospital”) and on August 23, 2016: in the case of adults at the time of conducting the examination at the time of the examination at the time of the filing of the petition, the fact that in the case of adults, an ordinary propool is required to further administer propool by using a method of adding propool in small quantities as necessary after viewing the patient’s reaction as necessary. In the case of old age, the initial capacity has been reduced by 30 to 50% compared to ordinary adults, and in the case of a patient with the end of the horse, there are many cases where the general condition of propool administration has deteriorated.

In full view of the following circumstances recognized by the above facts, the defendant hospital is deemed to have been negligent by failing to observe appropriate propool capacity and speed in administering propool to the deceased.

(1) Around May 7, 2013, the deceased’s body weight is 75 km, and at the time of the climatic test, the deceased’s body weight was not increased at the time when the climatic test was conducted. In general adult, propool invested the patient’s body weight from 0.5m to 1mg at the early size of 0.5m to 37.75m. When applying this to the deceased’s body weight, the propool initial weight is 37.5m to 75m. Meanwhile, the deceased’s propool weight is a new patient with the age of 72 years and the telegraph is weak, and the propool content of the deceased’s propool capacity at least 50% reduced by 18.75m to 37.5mm.

(2) On the other hand, there is only a statement that he administered propoly 70 km to a net net on May 24, 2013, 2011:00 in the nursing records prepared by the Defendant Hospital, and there is no statement about the initial volume of the propool administered to the Deceased at all.

(3) Meanwhile, the Defendant Hospital asserted that, at the time of submitting the criteria for the administration of the internal administration of the Defendant Hospital’s internal administration with the evidence No. 5, the Defendant Hospital’s propool’s initial administration of the deceased was 40mg, and thereafter, the patient’s border administration was additionally made by examining the patient’s light. However, even though the initial administration of the propool was 40mg, this is beyond the limit of 18.75 to 37.5m from the Plaintiff’s initial administration of the propool, which appears to have been appropriate for the deceased. Furthermore, the treatment progress becomes unclear due to the Defendant Hospital’s failure to faithfully prepare the records on the treatment. Accordingly, it is difficult to recognize that the internal administration of the Defendant Hospital was an initial administration of the Deceased as evidence, which was favorable to the patient’s side, and thus, it is difficult to recognize that the initial administration of only the internal administration of the Defendant Hospital was 40mg.

(4) In addition, there is no record measuring the deceased's body weight before the examination of the Mesium, and it is doubtful that the Defendant hospital could not fully take part in determining the volume of propooling. Since the deceased was an old and a new terminal patient with the end terminal, who falls under class 4 of the U.S. A. A. A. as a patient with the end terminal, the Defendant hospital could have actively examined the propoolization by a medical specialist in the anesthesia medical department.

(iv) whether there was negligence in comparison with low-carbon - no negligence before and after propoolation;

A) The plaintiff's assertion

When an internal police is implemented, a refund shall be made to prevent the same side effects as low-carbon symptoms.

The pre-fire extinguishing shall be carried out to the person, the oxygen shall be supplied by using coins, etc., and the oxygen concentration of the person to be recovered shall be continuously observed. Nevertheless, the defendant hospital did not perform the pre-fire extinguishing in favor of the deceased, and there is negligence that it did not supply the oxygen during the performance of the re-explication.

B) Determination

In full view of the following circumstances, it is difficult to view that the Defendant Hospital was negligent in relation to the preparation for the pre- and post-carbon symptoms, in which the Defendant Hospital invested the propool to the Deceased, taking into account the following circumstances as a result of the request for the examination of the medical records by the President of the Korean Medical Association on December 6, 2017 and the overall purport of the arguments, as a result of the request for the examination of the medical records by the President of the Korean Medical Association on January 9, 2018, and the overall purport of the arguments by the first instance court on October 14, 2015 and August 23, 2016.

(1) According to the nursing record, on May 13, 2013, the Defendant hospital continued to provide the Defendant hospital with an oxygen of 2L per minute through the coincation pipe after the Deceased transferred the Defendant hospital to the Defendant hospital. The Defendant hospital confirmed that propool was administered for the examination of the said incination, and that the oxygen incination rate of the Deceased was reduced to 68% after five minutes, and that the Defendant hospital continuously supplied the Defendant hospital to the Deceased through the coincation pipe.

(2) In addition, after five minutes after the propool was administered, the Defendant Hospital immediately confirmed that the deceased’s propoolization rate has decreased to 68%, and carried out a mass pressure exchange device using amplebubag to the deceased, and attempted to put it into the engine. This seems to have been possible for the Defendant Hospital to continuously monitor the patient’s propool and prepare a system to immediately cope with the patient’s oxygen reduction, i.e., the patient’s oxygen reduction., the patient’s oxygen decrease.

5) Retroactive deculation - No fault or negligence in first aid after the fall.

A) The plaintiff's assertion

At around 11:05, the sum of oxygen 11:05, which was 5 minutes after investment in propool, fell rapidly from 94% to 68%, but the 11:10 square meters was failed in the insertion inside the engine, and the 11:15 square meters was implemented in the engine. In addition, cardiopulmonary resuscitation was implemented at intervals of 3:5 minutes during cardiopulmonary resuscitation, and cardiopulmonary resuscitation began. At around 11:10, 11:15, 11:15, 11:25, 11:25, 11:25, the deceased’s cardiopulmonary resuscitation was administered at the end.

B) Determination

In light of the records, the first instance court's entrustment of the evaluation of the medical records on October 14, 2015 and August 23, 2016 to the president of the Central University Hospital, and the result of the entrustment of the evaluation of the medical records on August 23, 2016 to the director of the Central University Hospital, ① in the event that the patient's oxygen level falls, first of all, the patient's oxygen rate was reduced to 68%, and clinically, the oxygen level was reduced to 68%, not necessarily necessary, and ② in the event that the oxygen level increased to 80% at around 11:15, the two pressure ventilation was made while the inserted in the institution was not implemented, and ③ in the event that the time and capacity of the Defendant Hospital's injection of the bovineiform is appropriate.

In addition, as the result of the examination and treatment entrustment on December 6, 2017 and January 9, 2018 with respect to the president of the Korean Medical Association of this Court, (i) the operating hours are very short from 20 to 30 seconds, most of the oxygen supply using oxygen or ampurine is recovery from voluntary reproductive. In the case of the deceased, it is inappropriate for the Defendant hospital to have the possibility of reaching 80% of the oxygen flow through ampurine 11:15, even though the ampurine flow and cardiopulmonary resuscitation was properly conducted through ampurine, and (ii) it is difficult to deem that the Defendant hospital’s opinion was inappropriate to regulate the interval through clinical operation, and (iii) it is difficult to deem that the Defendant hospital’s opinion was in an inappropriate way to regulate the interval through the response to the first administration after the ampurfing.

Considering the opinions presented in the above request for the appraisal of medical records, the evidence presented by the Plaintiff, including evidence Nos. 4, 10, and 22, is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant hospital was negligent in the first aid after the Plaintiff’s childbirth was low, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

B. Whether there exists a causal relationship between the defendant's appeal and the deceased's death

1) Relevant legal principles

In order to be held liable for tort liability due to breach of duty of care or non-performance of a medical act, the existence of causation between breach of duty of care, occurrence of damages, and breach of duty of care and occurrence of damages is premised on medical practice. However, the medical procedure is an area where highly specialized knowledge is required, and only a doctor is able to know part of the patient himself/herself, and the medical procedure to achieve the result of treatment depends on the doctor’s discretion. As such, inasmuch as it cannot be revealed that whether the direct source of damage occurred due to medical malpractice is an ordinary person who is not an expert’s doctor, it is extremely difficult for the patient to prove that the causal relationship between the doctor’s breach of duty of care and the occurrence of damages is medically perfected. Accordingly, in the event of a medical accident, it is extremely difficult for the patient to prove that there was a defect in the medical procedure at least 20 years from the date of the victim’s series of medical procedures, and that there was no difference between the result and the result of the medical procedure at least 10 years prior to the conclusion of the judgment.

2) Determination

As seen earlier, the Defendant Hospital was negligent by negligence in the professional spool administration of the deceased’s petition against the deceased during the internal spool test, and the deceased died on February 16, 2014 as a multi-patch long-term unit due to per capita infection caused by low oxygen brain damage.

Meanwhile, according to the record No. 6 and the record of medical examination entrusted by the court of first instance on October 14, 2015 to the president of the Central University Hospital at the court of first instance, it is found that there was no opinion on brain cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral Earthquake at the two occasions since May 13, 2015 to which the deceased came into effect on May 23, 2015. The deceased appears that there was no low oxygen cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral Earthquake before the Defendant hospital’s petition against the deceased on the part of the deceased. Moreover, the record of medical examination entrusted by the court of first instance on October 14, 2015 to the president of the Central University Hospital at the court of first instance on the part of the deceased on the part of the deceased on the part of the deceased on the part of the deceased on the part of the deceased on the part of the deceased on the part of the medical examination conducted during the examination conducted at the time.

Considering the above circumstances, in the instant case where the Defendant hospital did not prove that the result of the deceased’s death due to low oxygen brain damage is not due to the negligence of the Defendant hospital, but due to the negligence of the Defendant hospital, the deceased is presumed to have died due to the negligence of the Defendant hospital’s negligence on the part of the propool administration and the normal negligence on the part of the deceased, resulting in low oxygen brain damage.

C. Whether the Defendant violated the duty of explanation

1) The plaintiff's assertion

Although the deceased was able to determine whether to conduct a true oral test, the prosecutor was conducted without the consent of the deceased. Moreover, even though the Appointer ○○○, the deceased’s spouse, has not signed the consent letter of a true oral test, the Defendant hospital prepared and submitted a forged consent letter.

2) Determination

B. According to the evidence Nos. 2, 3 and 6, if the deceased 2, 2, 2, and 2, 3, and 2, the deceased 1, 2, 3, and 2, the deceased 2, 1, 2, 3, 2, 2, 2, 3, 2, 2, 3, 1, 2, 2, 3, 2, 2, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 2, 2, 3, 2, 2, 3, 2, 3, 2, 2, 3, 2, 2, 3, 2, 2, 3, 20, 2, 2, 3, 2, 3, 2, 3, 2, 3, 20, 2, 2, 3, 3, 20, 2, 3, 3, 2013, 2, 2, 3, 3, 2, 2, 3, 3, 2, 3, 3, and 3, 3, ., 2, 3, ., ., 3, ., ., 2, 3, ., ., ., . of. of. of. of. of. of.

According to the above facts of recognition, the deceased was unable to make a decision on whether to consent to the background test at the time of the deceased's consciousness. The defendant hospital explained to the ○○○○○, who was living in the hospital as a person with a superior interest to the deceased and was in custody of the deceased, side effects that may result from the background test at the time of the above fact, and a merger certificate, etc., which is determined as the defendant hospital, as appropriate for the situation at the time.

D. Sub-determination

The Defendant hospital was negligent in failing to observe appropriate professionalpool capacity or inner limits in administering propool to the deceased and caused the deceased’s low oxygen evidence. The deceased is presumed to have died of low oxygen brain damage caused by these low oxygen symptoms. The Defendant has a duty to compensate the Plaintiff and the selected parties for the damage caused by the deceased’s death.

3. Scope of liability for damages

(a) Property damage;

(i) Wrons treatment expenses;

According to the evidence evidence No. 8, it is recognized that ○○○ was released from the hospital of Defendant to the hospital before and after the examination of the said hospital (from May 13, 2013 to December 31, 2013). However, the above hospitalization treatment expenses include the expenses incurred before the examination of the said hospital, and the expenses incurred before the examination of the said hospital are included in the expenses incurred before the said examination. However, it is deemed that the treatment expenses incurred by the examination of the said hospital are included in the treatment expenses for the new terminal of the horses, etc., which were previously owned by the deceased, rather than the treatment for the recovery and the prevention of deterioration of the symptoms caused by the damage to low carbon, and it is difficult to separately calculate the expenses. Thus, it is determined that it is difficult to calculate the expenses separately. Accordingly, the total amount of KRW 5,718,000 paid for the hospitalization treatment expenses should be recognized as the treatment expenses, but it should be considered for the limitation of liability of the Defendant hospital.

(b) Costs of purchasing health supplies;

The plaintiff asserts that he suffered 971,050 won in the purchase cost of health goods. However, it is not sufficient to recognize the damages of the Selection○○○○○ by only the purchase content of health goods submitted with Gap evidence 8, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

3) Funeral expenses

In consideration of the expenses, etc. normally incurred due to the death of an adult, funeral expenses of KRW 5,00,000 recognized by the empirical rule shall be recognized to the ○○○○ of the selected person.

4) Limitation on liability

① The Defendant hospital’s liability is limited to 50%, taking into account all circumstances, such as the fact that it is difficult to predict according to the patient’s condition at the time of an in-depth and oral test, and that there is an inevitable merger may occur; ② the fact that the deceased’s health condition appears to have influenced considerablely in the occurrence of low-carbon brain damage; ③ the fact that the Defendant’s medical expenses were recognized and explained, etc.

5) Sub-decisions

The property damage of ○○○○ is KRW 5,359,00 [the amount of KRW 5,718,00,000 + (the amount of funeral expenses of KRW 5,718,00 + the amount of funeral expenses of KRW 5,00,000].

(b) consolation money;

망인이 피고 병원에 전원한 당시 망인의 건강 상태, 망인의 나이, 진정 위내시경 검사 시행 전·후의 경위, 피고 병원의 주의의무 위반 정도, 망인과의 관계 등 여러 제 반사정을 고려하여, 망인의 사망으로 인한 망인의 위자료를 30,000,000원 , 선정자 정○ O(망인의 배우자) 의 위자료를 10,000,000원, 원고, 선정자 김■■, 김◆◆, 김◎◎(망인 의 자녀들) 의 위자료를 각 5,000,000원으로 각 정한다 .

C. Calculation of damages for the plaintiff and the designated parties

1) Selected ○○○: KRW 23,540,818 (=property damage + KRW 5,359,000 + Inheritance Amount of consolation money of the Deceased + KRW 8,181,818 (i.e., KRW 30,000,000 + KRW 3/11) + unique consolation money + KRW 10,00,000];

2 ) 원고, 선정자 김■■, 김◆◆, 김◎◎: 각 10,454,545원 [= 망인의 위자료 상속액 5,454,545원(= 30,000,000원 X 상속분 2/11) + 고유 위자료 5,000,000원 ]

4. Conclusion

그렇다면 원고는 선정자 정○○에게 손해배상금 23,540,818원, 원고, 선정자 김■■, 김◆◆, 김◎◎에게 각 손해배상금 10,454,545원 및 각 이에 대하여 불법행위일인 2013. 5. 24.부터 피고가 이행의무의 존재 여부나 범위에 관하여 항쟁하는 것이 타당한 이 법원의 판결 선고일인 2018. 6. 22.까지는 민법에 따른 연 5 % 의, 그 다음날부터 다 갚는 날까지는 소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법에 따른 연 15 % 의 각 비율로 계산한 지연손 해금을 각 지급할 의무가 있다 .

원고의 청구는 위 인정범위 내에서 이유 있어 이를 인용하고, 나머지 청구는 이유 없어 이를 기각하여야 한다. 제1심 판결은 이와 결론을 달리하여 부당하므로, 제1심 판 결 중 아래에서 지급을 명하는 돈에 해당하는 원고 패소부분을 취소하고, 피고는 선정 자 정○○에게 23,540,818원, 원고 , 선정자 김■■, 김◆◆, 김◎◎에게 각 10,454,545 원 및 각 이에 대한 지연손해금의 지급을 명하기로 하여 주문과 같이 판결한다 .

Collection Decree

Kim Jong-soo