손해배상(의)
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs and the succeeding intervenors B are dismissed.
2. Of the appeal costs, the Plaintiffs and the Defendants.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows: (a) “not later than December 23, 2018”; (b) “not later than January 2018”; (c) KRW 3,391,020 during the third sentence; and (d),380,020” in the fourth sentence of the judgment of first instance; and (d) “Evidence A or 5” in the fourth sentence of the judgment of the court of first instance as “A or 7 evidence”; and (c) except for addition of “additional judgment” in the second sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows.
2. Additional determination
A. 1) The Deceased’s assertion 1) was suspected of acute bordering at the time of the emergency room in the Defendant Hospital’s emergency room, and thus, he could prevent the Deceased’s death by being urgently performed through treatment, such as scamculing and arbitration, etc., during the examination if he had conducted an urgent examination to detect acute bordering conditions at the time of the emergency room in the Defendant Hospital. However, the Defendant C did not sufficiently explain the symptoms of the Deceased’s symptoms to the deceased or the Plaintiff, but did not sufficiently explain the need of the prosecutor and the danger (the fact that it may be possible to death) if he did not undergo the inspection. As a result, the Deceased refused the inspection without sufficiently recognizing the need of the prosecutor’s request or inspection, and the Deceased was administered only for the control of pain (On the other hand, the Defendant C prepared a medical record to prove that the deceased did not fulfill his duty to explain and that it did not interfere with the Plaintiffs’ medical record by preparing and correcting medical records, etc.
The Defendant C’s above breach of duty of care not only infringed the deceased’s right to self-determination, but also has a direct causal relationship with the deceased’s death. As such, Defendant C and Defendant C, the employer of Defendant C, jointly compensates the Plaintiffs for all damages.