A. The deceased B (hereinafter “the Deceased”) was diagnosed by around April 14, 201, and was hospitalized in the K Hospital operated by the Defendant Social Welfare Foundation H (hereinafter “Defendant Corporation”) on March 24, 2012, and was performed by Defendant I, a doctor affiliated with the foregoing hospital, to control his/her workplace on March 26, 2012.

B. On April 2, 2012, on the date of discharge, the Deceased was administered by Defendant J, a doctor affiliated with the above hospital, to remove the amount of excreta used in the above surgery.

(c)

After that, on August 31, 2012 and August 30, 2013, the deceased constantly complained of the pain, etc. of the above hospital, and as a result of his clothes CT shooting on August 30, 2013, it was confirmed that the above hospital’s part of the amount of the above double cover amount ( approximately 20 cm) still remains in the pelvis as a result of the inspection of his clothes CT on June 25, 2014, where the workplace was presumed to have been a carter of approximately 13.8cm length on the part of the hospital on which the workplace was removed, but the above hospital’s part was not discovered.

(d)

On October 2, 2014, the Deceased was performed to remove the pipes of the above amount.

E. On August 4, 2019, the deceased died on August 4, 2019 during the instant lawsuit. The deceased’s heir remains F (3/25 of the upper share = 1/5) of the spouse of the deceased’s child L (3/25 of the upper share = 3/5 x 3/5) and G (2/25 of the upper share = 1/5 x 2/5 25 x 2/5 2/5).

[Grounds for recognition: Eul evidence; Eul evidence of this court; the result of each request for the appraisal of medical records to the head of the M hospital and N hospital; hereinafter each "M hospital appraisal result" and "N hospital appraisal result"; the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. (1) According to the existence of liability for damages, according to the facts of the recognition of Defendant corporation and Defendant J’s above, it is apparent that Defendant J failed to remove the amount of excreta properly, and Defendant corporation, as its employer, is liable to compensate the employer pursuant to Article 756(1) of the Civil Act. Accordingly, the Defendants are liable to compensate each deceased and the Plaintiffs for damages therefrom.

(2) Defendant I’s evidence Nos. 9 and 11-1.