2014Ba251429 Damage (as can be claimed)

1. A;

2. B

1. C

2. D;

October 6, 2015

November 24, 2015

1. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendants are all dismissed. 2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Defendants jointly and severally pay to Plaintiff A 27,405,830 won, 5,000,000 won to Plaintiff B, and 5,000 won per annum from March 28, 2014 to the service date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. Defendant C is the founder of a mutually named welfare facility for the aged (hereinafter referred to as the “welfare facility for the aged”) with F in the Seo-gu E and 8 Daejeon, and Defendant D is the head of the facility.

B. On July 17, 2013, Plaintiff A diagnosed Albuse-type dementia and entered into a long-term care benefit contract with Defendant D during the contract period from July 17, 2013 to November 22, 2013, and entered into the instant welfare facility for the aged. On October 31, 2013, Plaintiff A entered the instant welfare facility for the aged. At around 22:30 to 22:40, Plaintiff A was at the center of G caregiver G’s care workers belonging to the instant welfare facility for the aged and was seated at the floor. Plaintiff A was hospitalized at H Hospital on November 4, 2013 to 12 weeks right-hand right-hand side of the instant mission, and was discharged at the bar (hereinafter referred to as “the instant facility for the elderly”). Plaintiff A was hospitalized at 10 to 10 to 10 to 210 to 20 to 10 to 10 to 20 to 20 to 20 to 20 to 1 to 12 to pel.

D. On December 24, 2013, Plaintiff A received KRW 7,320,00 from Defendant C with respect to the instant primary injury and agreed not to raise any objection related thereto in the future (hereinafter “Settlement Agreement”).

E. On February 1, 2014, Plaintiff A complained of the pain of the surgery department. Accordingly, the person in charge of the old-age welfare facility of this case visited Plaintiff A’s guardian and notified the Plaintiff’s guardian, and agreed to undergo a medical examination at the hospital on a monthly day. On February 3, 2014, Plaintiff A hospitalized the Plaintiff upon the diagnosis that it is necessary to undergo approximately 12 weeks of medical treatment due to his/her escape from the human mission division at H Hospital (hereinafter “the second injury”). On February 6, 2014, Plaintiff A was hospitalized, and was discharged on March 28, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 4, Gap evidence 7 to 10, Gap evidence 13, Eul evidence 1 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiffs asserted that the Defendants did not properly confirm their health condition and did not take appropriate measures against the Plaintiff A, thereby causing the second injury to the Plaintiff. The plaintiffs asserted that the Defendants caused positive damages 17,405,830 won (i.e., treatment expenses of KRW 3,040,080 + care expenses of KRW 3,850,000 + purchase expenses of medical aids + KRW 515,750 + care expenses of KRW 10,000 after maturity + KRW 27,405,830 (i.e., care expenses of KRW 17,405,830 + KRW 10,000) and KRW 10,000 (i.e., KRW 17,405,830 + KRW 10,000). Therefore, the plaintiffs' assertion that the Defendants did not properly support their health condition but did not include the above 131,000,000.

B. The plaintiffs could not have anticipated that the second injury of this case occurred at the time of the settlement agreement of this case. Thus, the validity of the settlement agreement of this case does not reach the second injury of this case, and therefore, the defendants are liable to compensate the plaintiffs for the damages suffered due to the second injury of this case.

Therefore, it is not sufficient to recognize it even if comprehensively taking into account each description of evidence Nos. 1 and 13 (including each number) as to whether it was impossible to anticipate that human mission Section could be avoided at the time of the reconciliation agreement of this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Since the escape of human mission Section appears to be one of the major causes of performing a re-operation after the re-operation of the mission, the plaintiffs' assertion on this part is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim against the defendants of this case is dismissed in its entirety as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Juk-sil