beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
Reasons
1. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was between January 8, 2013 and November 2013, the Plaintiff lived in the Seoul detention center and the Ycheon Prison. On January 11, 2013, when the Seoul detention center was in confinement, the Plaintiff requested external medical treatment, such as CT and MRI test, but was rejected without justifiable grounds. The designated person who was at the time of the Seoul detention center’s medical care officer failed to properly treat and treat the Plaintiff, even though the Plaintiff constantly complained of pains, such as eye, eye, ear, and chros, and he left the Plaintiff without proper medical treatment and treatment. Accordingly, the Plaintiff suffered a huge mental suffering.
Therefore, the Defendant and the designated parties have a duty to pay monetary compensation to the Plaintiff’s emotional distress caused by the aforementioned tort.
2. Determination
A. First, as to whether the Defendant refused the Plaintiff’s request for external medical treatment without justifiable grounds, the health care team, and on January 11, 2013, the fact that the Plaintiff requested the Seoul detention center to provide external medical treatment due to the symptoms as alleged by the Plaintiff, but the Seoul detention center did not have any dispute between the parties. However, as to whether the Defendant refused the Plaintiff’s request for external medical treatment without justifiable grounds, there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge this by itself, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.
Rather, Article 37(1) of the Administration and Treatment of Correctional Institution Inmates Act provides that “If a prisoner wishes to receive treatment at his/her own expense from a doctor working for an external medical institution, the warden may have him/her receive treatment at a medical institution outside the correctional institution,” and Article 38 of the same Act provides that “The warden may permit it by considering the opinion of the doctor working for the correctional institution.” The Defendant is the Plaintiff.