Seoul Central District Court 2014Gahap589263

Compensation (Definition)

A

Korea

June 24, 2015

July 22, 2015

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 216,00,000 won with 25% interest per annum from the day when the judgment of this case became final and conclusive to the plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 12, 2009, the Plaintiff was detained for habitual larceny and was detained in Seoul Southern Detention Center. On August 26, 2009, the Seoul Western District Court sentenced two years to imprisonment for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Larceny) at the Seoul Western District Court on the grounds of August 26, 201, and was discharged from prison on April 5, 2010, after the said judgment became final and conclusive, the Plaintiff was discharged from prison on June 11, 201. The Plaintiff was sentenced to three years and six months for the same offense at the Seoul Western District Court on June 27, 2012, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on September 21, 2012.

B. On April 12, 2010, when the Plaintiff was in prison, the Plaintiff received dental treatment from a medical officer of the pertinent prison. At the time, the medical officer of the said prison confirmed that the Plaintiff’s dental officer occurred from a majority of the dental officers, and recommended the Plaintiff to provide medical treatment.

C. Since May 25, 2010 and on September 6, 2010, the Plaintiff requested the head of the Ansan Prison to conduct medical care without compensation after being diagnosed with the preceding paragraph from the medical officer of the Ansan Prison. However, the head of the Ansan Prison refused the Plaintiff’s request on the ground that the Plaintiff ought to receive medical care at his own expense in the case of medical care.

D. At present, the Plaintiff is in need of nephalopic treatment and velopic treatment, etc. due to nephalopic chronological infection and non-epidemic epidemic chronological infection.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without any dispute, Gap's 1 to 5, Eul's 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. According to Articles 30, 36, and 37(5) of the Administration and Treatment of Correctional Institution Inmates Act (hereinafter “the Administration and Treatment of Correctional Institution Inmates Act”), the warden of a prison shall receive appropriate treatment where a prisoner is injured or has suffered from a disease. Only where a prisoner suffers from an injury with his/her intention or gross negligence and receives medical treatment in an external medical facility, the relevant medical expenses may be borne by the prisoner.

B. In addition, despite being aware of the fact that the Plaintiff was suffering from heavy pain, public officials belonging to the Ansan prison under the Defendant’s jurisdiction, the Plaintiff did not prescribe the Plaintiff by comparing the truth-control so that the Plaintiff could receive appropriate treatment with knowledge of the fact that there was a provision under the preceding paragraph, and the Plaintiff did not intentionally neglect the fact that some of the treatment costs were borne by the Defendant’s side of the correctional institution without any justifiable reason and neglected the Plaintiff’s request to demand the Plaintiff to pay a part of the treatment costs, thereby leaving the Plaintiff neglected the aggravation of the state of dental health.

C. As a result, the Plaintiff was unable to receive any treatment for the depression during the period of confinement in the Ansan Prison, and the Plaintiff was in the status where 22 of the entire dentals were vegetationd. The Defendant was responsible for compensating the Plaintiff for the damages suffered by the Plaintiff due to the above occupational misconduct committed by the public officials belonging to the Ansan Prison.

3. Determination

Article 30 of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that “The warden of the correctional institution shall take appropriate sanitary and medical measures as long as prisoners need to lead a healthy life.” Article 36(1) of the same Act provides that “If prisoners are injured or suffer from disease, the warden of the correctional institution shall complete appropriate treatment.” Article 37(1) of the same Act provides that “the warden has a duty to provide prisoners with an opportunity to receive appropriate treatment through a correctional institution’s own facilities or external medical facilities where prisoners are injured or suffer from disease, the warden of the correctional institution shall complete appropriate treatment if the prisoners are injured or suffer from disease.” Thus, the State has a duty to provide prisoners with an opportunity to receive appropriate treatment through the correctional institution’s own facilities or external medical facilities where prisoners are injured or suffer from disease. However, in such a case, the State cannot interpret that the State bears the duty to provide prisoners with high-priced expenses without compensation regardless of the type of injury or disease, and thus, the scope and contents of “the treatment to be provided to prisoners” should be determined by the State, based on the relevant budget and equity of prisoners, etc.

However, it appears that the Plaintiff’s medical treatment for the dental surgery goes beyond the level of treatment available by its own equipment in the correctional institution. The Plaintiff’s assertion itself also requires a cost of KRW 6 million for the Plaintiff’s dental treatment. In light of the type of disease caused by the Plaintiff, its treatment method and expenses, etc., it is sufficient for the Defendant to provide the Plaintiff with an opportunity to undergo the medical treatment for the dental surgery at his/her own expense, and the Defendant bears the obligation to provide the Plaintiff with the medical care for the dental surgery at his/her own expense, while the Defendant bears the above large expenses for the medical treatment and bears the obligation to provide the Plaintiff’s dental surgery free of charge.

In addition, there is no evidence to acknowledge that public officials belonging to the Ansan prison have intentionally silentd the provision of the above Act on the Execution of Punishment to the plaintiff in order to refuse treatment for the plaintiff. As seen earlier, as long as the medical personnel belonging to the Ansan prison confirmed the plaintiff's dental condition through three or more dental treatments, and again recommended the plaintiff to receive medical treatment from outside dental specialists, it cannot be seen that public officials belonging to the Ansan prison neglected the plaintiff's dental condition that the public officials belonging to the Ansan prison neglected the plaintiff's oral treatment. Considering the overall purport of the arguments in the period of the evidence No. 4, the plaintiff's assertion that the public officials belonging to the Ansan prison neglected the plaintiff's oral treatment, and the fact that the plaintiff was prescribed several times during the calendar period of the Ansan prison, but the public officials belonging to the Ansan prison did not prescribe the plaintiff, despite the plaintiff's appeal of the plaintiff's pain, is also inconsistent with objective facts, and therefore, it cannot be accepted.

As such, the grounds alleged by the Plaintiff alone cannot be deemed that the Defendant is liable for damages against the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff’s claim is rejected without any need to examine further the scope of damages.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

The judge of the presiding judge, the assistant judge of the court and the vice-chief judge;