치료비
1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.
2. The plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant B shall be dismissed.
3. The plaintiff's defendant C and D
1. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is, Defendant B, at the E Hospital operated by the Plaintiff, the patient suffering from her been hospitalized in the hospital from April 2, 2016 to July 27, 2016, and Defendant C and D jointly and severally guaranteed the Defendant B’s obligation to pay the medical expenses for the above period. As such, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff KRW 2,537,540 for the medical expenses during the pertinent period.
2. We examine the legitimacy of the Plaintiff’s lawsuit against Defendant B ex officio on the legitimacy of the lawsuit against Defendant B.
In light of the following circumstances that can be recognized based on the overall purport of entry and pleading as evidence No. 5, ① Defendant B was hospitalized as a patient suffering from her own illness from April 2, 2016 to July 27, 2016; ② according to the medical records during the aforementioned period of hospitalization, Defendant B had been able to conduct such acts as asserting a lag during the period of 10 years prior to 10 years; Defendant B had been unable to reach a normal conversation; ③ there is no evidence to deem that there was a change in the situation after Defendant B’s discharge from the hospital operated by the Plaintiff; and ③ there is no other evidence to deem that the situation was improved even after the Plaintiff’s discharge from the hospital operated by the Plaintiff, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant B had no ability to conduct procedural acts as a party at the time of filing the instant lawsuit.
Therefore, the plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant B is unlawful as being brought against a person who has no litigation capacity.
3. According to the statement in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 regarding each claim against the defendant C and D, the defendant Eul was hospitalized as a spawn disease patient, and the plaintiff was hospitalized at the E Hospital operated by the plaintiff according to the consent of the defendant C and D to be hospitalized from April 2, 2016 to July 27, 2016, and the plaintiff claimed medical expenses of KRW 2,537,540 to the defendants.
The Plaintiff asserted to the effect that Defendant C and D guaranteed the Defendant B’s obligation to pay medical expenses. However, the written consent for hospitalization (Evidence A 1) written by the Defendant C and D is Article 24 of the former Mental Health Act (amended by Act No. 1424, May 29, 2016).