The judgment below

Among them, the part of the defendant corporation's shot tree is reversed, and this part of the case is applied.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to the grounds of appeal against the Defendant’s social welfare foundation’s shot tree

A. A medical contract is concluded between a medical person and a patient where a patient requests a doctor or a medical institution (hereinafter “medical person”) to provide medical treatment, and a medical person begins to provide medical treatment in response to his/her request.

In accordance with a medical contract, a medical person shall bear the obligation to diagnose and treat patients by using all medical knowledge and medical technology for the treatment, etc. of a disease, and the patient shall bear the obligation to pay remuneration therefor.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2009Da17417 Decided May 21, 2009). Meanwhile, who is a party to a contract constitutes a matter of interpretation of the intent of the party involved in the contract (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2008Da45828, Mar. 19, 2009). This also applies when determining who is a party to a medical contract.

Therefore, in a case where a person, other than a patient, requests a medical person to treat a patient whose consciousness is unknown or who is in a medical capacity, the determination of whether a medical contract was concluded between the requesting person and the medical person should be made by comprehensively examining all the circumstances such as the patient’s relationship with the requesting person, the reason why the request for medical treatment was made, whether the requesting person intended to bear the expenses for the patient’s medical treatment, the patient’s consciousness and state

B. The lower court: (a) caused by the mistake of the caregivers belonging to the safe guard during hospitalization in the sanatorium for the elderly at the time when the F was operated by the Defendant Welfare Foundation (hereinafter “Defendant Welfare Corporation”) and caused the Plaintiff to suffer from the depression; and (b) pursuant to the Work Agreement on the After-patients and hospitalized treatment concluded between the Defendant Welfare Corporation and the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff.