손해배상(의)
1. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.
A. Defendant Educational Foundation H (hereinafter “Defendant H”) was hospitalized in M Hospital operated by Defendant Educational Foundation H (hereinafter “Defendant H”) (hereinafter “Defendant Hospital”).
B. On September 10, 2014, K died due to the aggravation of the heart due to the closure at Defendant Hospital at around 18:39.
C. Meanwhile, Plaintiff A is the wife of the deceased K (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) and the rest of the plaintiffs are the children of the deceased, Defendant I is the professor in charge of the circulation of the Defendant Hospital, and Defendant J was the doctor’s duties of the deceased.
【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1, 2, and 7, the purport of the whole pleading
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The gist of the plaintiffs' assertion * The medical professionals at Defendant I and J, etc., of Defendant I and the deceased showed symptoms of the pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary
* In addition, on September 10, 2014, Defendant J did not directly observe the Deceased on five occasions on the day of his death, resulting in the Deceased’s death.
* As such, Defendant I and J are liable for tort due to such negligence, and Defendant H bears the employer’s liability as the above Defendants’ employer.
* Accordingly, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay funeral expenses paid to the Plaintiffs due to the death of the deceased, consolation money, and damages for losses indicated in the purport of the claim, which is the sum of consolation money of the Plaintiffs, and damages for delay.
B. We examine whether there was negligence in the early diagnosis of waste collection, the above acknowledged facts and evidence, Gap evidence Nos. 3 to 5 and 8 (including paper numbers), Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 4, the results of the entrustment of appraisal of medical records to the director of the Seoul Medical Center and the results of fact inquiry, and the following circumstances acknowledged according to the purport of the entire pleadings: ①.