2. C

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims against the defendants are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, 2/3 is assessed against the Plaintiff, and the remainder is assessed against the Defendants.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

(a) The relationship between the parties;

1) Defendant B is a psychiatrist who operates a “Dental Medical Doctor” in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant Councilor”).

2) Defendant C obtained a nurse license on February 14, 1977, and worked as a nurse, and the Plaintiff was a person who was operating the four-day shop in Seocho-gu Seoul from around 1998, and was employed by the Defendant B. The Plaintiff on the day of the instant case.

3) The Plaintiff is a person who had been prepared to enter a university with a major in pianian labor while receiving a mental therapy before the Plaintiff was enrolled in the Defendant Council member.

B. The plaintiff's mental health and treatment experience

The plaintiff received treatment from the Macheon-Mancheon Hospital Mental Health Department, from January 2010, the plaintiff was diagnosed with coercion, anti-pathic, anti-pathic, anti-pathic, anti-pathic, anti-pathic, etc., and was administered by spathic, anti-pathic, anti-pathic, anti-pathic, etc.

C. Treatment in Defendant Council Members

1) On October 15, 2014, the Plaintiff first fessing the Defendant Council members, complaining of the above symptoms, and requested for the negoal stability injection. Since that time, the Plaintiff met with the Defendant Council members almost every day, and was administered with the negos or dypists as a beer by the prescription of Defendant B, and was administered several times by Defendant C, such as the weekends and the date of the College Ability Test.

2) On December 3, 2014, a pre-contract for medical treatment against the Plaintiff was initially 15:00, but the Plaintiff, who received the call from Defendant B to move to the A.M. Around 11:00, the Plaintiff became a member of the Defendant Council. Defendant B prescribed that he/she was a beer of A.M. and D. Around 11:0, the Defendant C attempted to be able to provide a beer for the Plaintiff at the president of the Defendant Council room.

3) On December 3, 2014, Defendant B disinfected the Plaintiff’s left part of knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife, and reduced the roof.

(d) medical treatment at the Sung-si Hospital of the Korea Forest University, the Central University Hospital, and the Synish Hospital;

1) On December 5, 2014, the Plaintiff was in charge of the emergency room at the Sungnam University Hospital. A medical doctor in charge of the emergency room confirmed that there was a side salvine, salvine, and 3 x 3 cmumae on the left part of the Plaintiff’s left part, and explained the necessity of hospitalization and surgery at the early stage of the salpology. However, the Plaintiff refused hospitalization.

2) On December 7, 2014, at around 03:09, the Plaintiff was in the emergency room of the Central University Hospital, and complained of the pain and side of the left hand part. The physician in charge of an emergency room has fixed the Plaintiff’s left hand hand by side splint, explain the Plaintiff’s side splint, and recommends the Plaintiff to sprink and infection, but the Plaintiff refused to provide hospitalization and discharged the Plaintiff. From December 9, 2014 to December 20 of the same month, the Plaintiff was sent to the outside of the regular branch of the Central University Hospital, and the Plaintiff was provided with a creative treatment, an antibiotic medicine, upon receipt of a request for the cooperation, and the Plaintiff was recommended to provide the Plaintiff with the sum of the monthly salary splint and the daily salary spact, if possible, if possible.

3) On December 31, 2014, the Plaintiff began to receive medical treatment from a medical school Symnasium Symnasium symnasium, and on the grounds that the aforementioned sex surgery and the symnasium were serious in the loss in removing ples and combined with the primary symnasium, the Plaintiff decided to implement the symnasium. On January 21, 2015, the Plaintiff was hospitalized in the above hospital on January 22, 2015, and received symnasium symnasium symnasium symnasium and symnasium symnasium symnasium from the hospital. After discharge, the Plaintiff was treated at the symnasium in order to alleviate the symnasium and symnasium.

E. The plaintiff's present state

At present, the plaintiff remains 2 x the upper half of the degree of 2 cm (hereinafter referred to as "the upper part of this case") on the left part of the water course.

(f) relevant medical knowledge;

In the event that the dose dose has been satisfyed due to administration at the time of medication, or where the beer is satisfyed, the exculing out of the bloodline may occur. In such a case, there may be a combination of crye, such as cryp, which may occur from different symptoms, such as pain, severe East, satching, satching, satching, satching, satching, satching, etc., which may occur due to symptoms, such as pain, pressure, pressure, skin, satis, satis, satis, etc., which occur. In the event of the suspected of being satisfy, the medication shall be immediately interrupted, making soup or making soup by which the satisfy is administered according to drugs, and the satching, making soup or making soup.

【Grounds for Recognition】 (A) 1 to 12, 17, 18, 2, 3, and 12 (including documentary evidence attached with a serial number), each description or image of evidence, witness F’s testimony, and the result of the court’s entrustment of physical examination to the head of the Goro University Hospital, the result of the court’s fact-finding on the Head of the Central University Hospital, the Head of the Epathic Department, and the Director of the Epathic Department, the purport of the entire pleadings, as a whole.

2. The parties' assertion

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

The Defendants have the following medical malpractices, and Defendant B is the employer of Defendant C. Therefore, the Defendants are jointly liable to compensate for the damages incurred by the Plaintiff.

1) Defendant C’s medical malpractice

Defendant C was negligent in failing to take appropriate measures, such as making soup and making soup, even though Defendant C attempted to provide DNA beer for a period exceeding 2 hours on December 3, 2014 to the Plaintiff, and caused DNA beer outflow, and furthermore, he/she did not take appropriate measures, such as making soup and making soup, even though he/she knew that the problem on the Plaintiff’s beer and beer.

2) Defendant B’s medical malpractice

① Defendant B did not perform the duty to guide and supervise Defendant C, including that Defendant C did not take any measures to lose beer for not less than two hours, while attempting to be beer for beer for beer, etc. ② Defendant B violated the duty of explanation by failing to explain to the Plaintiff that the risk of beer for beer due to beer for beer for beer for beer for beer for beer for beer for beer for beer for beer for beer for beer for beer for beer for beer for beer for beer for beer for beer for beer for beer for beer for beer for beer for beer for beer for beer. ③ Defendant B, without taking prompt measures to ensure that the Plaintiff was able to receive appropriate treatment, aggravated the instant beer for beer for beer for beer for beer for beer for beer for beer for beer for beer for beer for beer for beer for beer for beer for beer for beer for beer for beer for as soon as possible after the instant medical accident.

B. Summary of the defendants' assertion

1) 피고 C은 당일 원고의 혈관을 찾지 못하여 정맥주사를 포기하고 신경안정제를 투여하지 않았다. 이 사건 상처는 주사제의 관외 유출이 아니라 원고가 스스로 두 줄로 할퀸 자해의 결과이다.

2) Defendant B: (a) promptly verified the Plaintiff’s top of the body; and (b) observed 3 to 4 days, and sought to request the Plaintiff to a medical specialist for disinfection; and (c) refused to comply with the Plaintiff’s request. Defendant B provided an explanation duty to the Plaintiff by explaining the risk, side effects, cautions, etc. of beer, and attempted to change the body into beer, but the Plaintiff neglected to fully demand for beer while making a request for beer.

3. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Determination as to the Defendants’ assertion of negligence in medical treatment

1) Since it may cause side effects, such as organized leader, etc., on the scam of the scam that have been administered to be scam, a doctor is obliged to give adequate and detailed instructions on the location and method of injection, etc. of a nurse or an assistant nurse, even if he/she himself/herself gives an appropriate and detailed instruction about the location and method of injection, and to take measures to ensure that he/she ceases to have a patient's signs, etc. during the process of administering injection while attending the relevant place (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 90Do579, May 22, 1990).

2) Comprehensively taking into account the facts and evidence as seen earlier and the evidence as well as the evidence No. 14-3’s overall purport of the pleading, it is reasonable to view that Defendant C was caused by the outflow of medication to the Plaintiff during several hours from 11:0 to 14:30. Moreover, Defendant C did not fulfill the duty of care necessary to prevent the outflow of medication to the Plaintiff. Defendant C did not instruct Defendant C, who is not a regular nurse or assistant nurse of the Defendant Council members, but merely an assistant nurse, to take appropriate measures to prevent the outflow of the medication on the day of the accident, and even if Defendant C was negligent in failing to take appropriate measures to prevent the outflow of the medication on the day of the accident, and if the outbreak of the medication occurred to the Defendants, the Plaintiff is not liable to take appropriate measures such as making soup and making soup immediately, or taking appropriate measures to the Plaintiff as a joint tortfeasor, and thus, Defendant C was not liable to take such measures as a joint tortfeasor or a joint tortfeasor.

① 피고 의원의 간호조무사인 F은 이 법정에서 사고 당일의 상황에 대하여 다음과 같은 내용으로 진술하였다. 즉 F은 사고 당일 오전에 개인 용무를 보고 14:30경 피고 의원에 출근하였는데, 피고 의원에 들어가면서 원고가 원장실에서 손목을 붙잡고 나와 뇌파치료실로 들어가는 장면, 피고 B이 원고를 뒤따라 뇌파치료실로 들어간 후 문을 닫는 장면, 피고 C은 옷을 갈아입고 피고, 의원을 나가는 장면을 목격하였다. 이어 약 10~15분 후에 B이 시키는 대로 약국에서 메디폼을 사왔고, 원고의 왼쪽 손목 부위를 소독하고 메디폼을 붙이는 과정에 참여하였는데, 원고의 피부에 물집 같은 것이 생기면서 부풀고 있었고 두 줄로 할퀸 흔적은 없었으며 원고가 자해한 상처로는 보이지 않았다. 메디폼을 붙였는데도 원고의 상처 부위에 물이 흐르자 피고 B의 지시로 다시 한 번 약국에 가서 붕대를 사와 원고의 왼쪽 손목 부위에 붕대를 감아준 다음 원고를 귀가시켰다.

② The certificate of the medical examination and treatment of the Gelim University (A evidence 1-2) includes the Plaintiff’s name as the Plaintiff’s '(s) injecting, blood transfusion, and giving medical treatment.’ The medical examination (A evidence 3) written by G at the Central University Hospital includes the Plaintiff’s name as the 's '(s) injection, blood transfusion, and infections on the left side', and the cause is determined to have been leaked to the blood bank. In addition, even in the medical examination written by H’s written opinion and written diagnosis (A evidence 5-2 and A6) by the medical school at the school of the next generation, Byung’s name as the 'damage caused by exposure to the blood bank’.

③ On December 15, 2014, Defendant B divided conversations that could be seen as having recognized medical accidents in the telephone call with the Plaintiff.

B. Determination on Defendant B’s assertion of violation of the duty to explain

The doctor's duty to explain cannot be exempted solely on the ground that there is little possibility of risk such as post-treatment or side effects, etc. in the course of his medical practice. Barring special circumstances, the doctor bears the burden of proving the doctor's duty to explain (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da5867, May 31, 2007). According to the evidence No. 2, it is reasonable to deem that the medical record of Defendant Member of the Republic of Korea, after October 15, 2014, when the Plaintiff first administered her her ties from Defendant B, stated that the Plaintiff explained the directions for her her pathythy in the medical record of Defendant Member of the same month, which was after October 17, 2014. However, it is insufficient to recognize that Defendant B specifically explained the Plaintiff about the risk of her pathy, merger, etc. before he first administered her her her pathythy.

However, in a case where a doctor violates the duty to explain and causes a serious result to a patient, and then claims for all damages as a result, there is a proximate causal relationship between the significant result and the doctor’s breach of the duty to explain or the mistake in the process of obtaining consent (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da3421, Jan. 20, 195). In this case, even if Defendant B fulfilled the duty to explain the merger certificate, etc. of Macam, it cannot be concluded that the Plaintiff refused Macam. Therefore, it is difficult to conclude that there is a proximate causal relationship between Defendant’s violation of the duty to explain and the wife of this case. Accordingly, Defendant B’s violation of the duty to explain should be considered only in calculating consolation money for

C. Limitation on liability

However, in full view of the aforementioned evidence and the overall purport of the oral argument, the following circumstances, i.e., e., e., patrial stability vaccination against the Plaintiff had been continuously made at the Plaintiff’s request. Accordingly, Defendant C was difficult to find a proper blood source. ② The Plaintiff refused diagnosis and recommendation for hospitalized treatment at the early stage of the imposed disease after being placed in the sexual emergency hospital at the Korea Forest University and the central university hospital emergency room after being placed in the above beer due to beer for beer for beer for beer for beer for beer for beer for beer for beer for beer for beer for the first stage of the imposed disease, and ③ even if all technologies are treated for all, the medical act is dangerous to avoid occurring outside the anticipated outcome. Therefore, imposing all damages incurred by the medical negligence on the Defendants is contrary to the principle of equity, and ④ other factors, taking into account the Plaintiff’s age, symptoms, treatment process, etc., the Defendants’ liability for damages should be limited to 60% of the Defendants’ liability for compensation for fair and reasonable allocation.

4. Scope of liability for damages

(a) Expenses for medical treatment;

From December 31, 2014 to November 9, 2016, the total amount of KRW 4,023,248 (except for the respiratory surgery in which it appears that it is not related to this case) and the total amount of KRW 4,816,328 were required for 8,839,576.

【Ground for recognition】 15 Evidence 1, 2

(b) Nursing expenses;

From January 1, 2015 to December 29, 2015, the Plaintiff, alone, is unable to freely provide meals or move during the period of hospitalization in the Synas Hospital. In particular, the Plaintiff seeks payment of KRW 849,042 during the period of hospitalization by asserting that, in cases where the Defendants were left unattended due to extreme stress due to a dispute with the Defendants, the Plaintiff was directly entitled to open care from the synasium due to the possibility of extreme choice.

However, in light of the Plaintiff’s upper parts, degree, etc., it is difficult to deem that there is a need for nursing as alleged by the Plaintiff, as well as there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff’s lower part of the claim was actually opened. This part of the claim is difficult to accept from any mother.

(c) Expenses for future treatment;

1) 754,00 won per time is required for the three reflective scamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscams at intervals of six months. For the convenience of calculation, the costs of the first and the second and third operations are deemed to have been each disbursed on the day following the date of closing the argument in this case, and are a total of 1,939,362 won when calculated at the present price in the accident.

A person shall be appointed.

[Grounds for recognition] The result of the above physical appraisal commission

2) The Plaintiff asserts that, in addition to the anti-scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopics

(d) limitation and deductions of liability;

(i) Liability ratio: 60 percent;

2) Property damage: KRW 6,467,362 [The amount of KRW 8,839,576 + (the amount of future treatment + the amount of KRW 1,939,362), X 60%, and the amount of less than KRW 60];

3) Mutual Aid

(1) Health insurance benefits: Where a victim who received insurance benefits pursuant to the National Health Insurance Act claims for damages against a third party, and the victim’s negligence competes with the occurrence of such damage, the insurance benefits shall be deducted after offsetting the amount of damage calculated first by fault from the amount of damage (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da39103, Sept. 13, 2012). This also applies to limitation of liability (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da39103, Sept. 13, 2012). Therefore, among the total medical expenses, the total amount of KRW 1,640,149, supra, should be deducted.

[Reasons for Recognition] 15 Evidence A 15-1 and 2

② Of the Defendant’s KRW 1,063,940, the amount equivalent to the ratio of the Plaintiff’s liability (40%) to the Plaintiff’s KRW 425,576.

【Evidence of Evidence No. 13】

(3) Calculation: 6,467,362 won - 1,640,149 won - 425,576 won = 4,401,637 won

(f) consolation money;

1) Reasons for taking into account: The particulars and result of the accident, the contents and degree of the Defendants’ negligence, the Plaintiff’s age, and other various circumstances shown in the instant pleadings.

2) Amount determined: 6,000,000 won

G. Sub-determination

Therefore, the Defendants jointly have the obligation to jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff KRW 10,401,637 (=property damages of KRW 4,401,637 + solatium 6,00,000 + damages for delay calculated at each rate of 15% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from November 15, 2017, which is the date of this decision, to November 15, 2017, when the Defendants dispute over the existence and scope of the obligation to perform, and the amount of damages for delay calculated from the following day to the date of full payment.

5. Conclusion

Each claim against the Defendants by the Plaintiff is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.