A. Defendant B is a father and a medical specialist working for the “E Hospital” located in the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, and Defendant C (hereinafter “Defendant corporation”) is the Defendant B’s employer as a juristic person operating the above hospital.

B. On October 2, 2013, Defendant B collected the Plaintiff’s king operation, which was hospitalized for only a subdivision at the above hospital on October 21, 2013.

At the time, Defendant B, after the above operation, sealed the part of the Plaintiff’s clothes while the head of the business remains in the part of the Plaintiff’s clothes, and eventually, the above business was left alone in the part of the Plaintiff’s clothes for about 15 days.

(hereinafter “instant medical accident”). C.

As a result, on October 17, 2013, the Plaintiff performed an emergency rupture operation at a reduced hospital on the 17th day of 2013 due to the pain and heat of the parts of the uniforms, and the agriculture in the rupture of the rupture.

In relation to the instant medical accident, Defendant B was sentenced to a fine of KRW 20 million in the instant case of injury by occupational negligence in 2014 high-class 4129, and thereafter appealed, but the judgment dismissing the appeal was rendered in the instant case, and the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 5, 15, and 17, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. Defendant B was causing damage to the Plaintiff due to the instant medical accident. As for the damages, Defendant B is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the sum of KRW 8,929,340, and KRW 21,756,313, and KRW 61,685,653, in total, for the period of hospitalization in the relevant hospital (from October 17, 2013 to November 6, 2013).

B. The defendant corporation is the employer of the defendant B, and is liable to the employer for the above illegal act of the defendant B. Thus, the defendant corporation is jointly liable to compensate for damages with the defendant B.

3. Determination

A. According to the facts of the first instance recognition of the liability for damages and the statement of Gap evidence No. 2, when conducting a king operation, several businesss are intended to absorb the patient's transferee and blood transfusion.