손해배상(기)
1. The Defendants: (a) each of the Plaintiffs A 20,790,341 won; (b) Plaintiff B, C, D, and E respectively; and (c) each of them was KRW 7,136,363.
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. The facts of recognition (1) Plaintiff A is the wife of the deceased H (I) and Plaintiff B, C, D, and E are the offspring of the deceased.
The Kvalescent Hospital located in Chungcheongnam-gun, Seocheon-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, J (hereinafter referred to as the “instant convalescent Hospital”) is a hospital in charge of the treatment and recuperation of the elderly suffering from dementia and sponson’s disease, and is entrusted by the Defendant Foundation F (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant Foundation”) from Seocheon-gun, which is operating the said hospital. The Defendant G dispatched a nursing worker with the trade name “L”, and the Defendant G dispatched M to the instant convalescent hospital to have the deceased attend the hospital.
(2) Around 2010, the Deceased caused dementia symptoms (e.g., recognition disorder, and recognition behavior); around December 2013, the Deceased’s disease was diagnosed; and on March 30, 2015, the Deceased hospitalized in the instant convalescent Hospital 206.
(3) On April 1, 2015, at around 12:30, the Deceased died on April 5, 2015, when the entrance leading to the second floor bend floor of the convalescent hospital of this case and the network for shocking, going to be beer, followed by a brush dynasium in that location, and fell beyond the rail railing of the degree of adult lusium height. The Deceased died on April 5, 2015, when he was under medical treatment due to injury, such as 1, 2, 4, vertrasium, vertrasium, vertrasium, bitrasium, and dykes damage.
(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, each entry and video of Gap Nos. 1 through 10 (including paper numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings.
B. According to the above facts of recognition of liability, the Defendant, a corporation operating the instant convalescent hospital, neglected to prevent in advance risks that may occur from abnormal actions by the Deceasedsson’s disease, and caused the instant accident by neglecting to prevent accidents despite the fact that there was a duty of care to prevent accidents.
The defendant G should have M as an employer of M, and should have M de facto attend the care so that the deceased does not work as a stone.