1. On October 11, 2018, the net F is windows after removing the shock network from the H care source I located in the Goyang-dong G in Goyang-gu, Manyang-si on October 11, 2018.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. The relationship 1) The Plaintiff’s medical care center located in Goyang-gu Seoul Metropolitan City G (hereinafter “instant medical care center”).

(2) The Defendants were the representative of the deceased. (2) The deceased, who is the spouse and children of the deceased F (Death on October 11, 2018, hereinafter “the deceased”), was admitted to the Medical Care Center on October 8, 2018.

B. On October 11, 2018, 30,000 won after the Deceased’s death was admitted to the instant medical center, the deceased removed the shock net installed on the windows from the instant medical center I to remove the shock net and died from approximately 68 cm wide and about 55 cm long.

(hereinafter referred to as the "accident of this case"). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 10, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 4 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Article 19(2)4 of the Act on the Use of Long-Term Care Benefits to be entered into at the time of admission to the medical care center of this case provides that “When a user has been injured or has died due to his intentional or gross negligence,” the user cannot demand compensation from the medical care center of this case, the provider. The accident of this case is an accident caused by the deceased’s intentional intent. As such, the Defendants, the deceased’s heir, pursuant to the above exemption agreement or the subsidiary agreement, are not entitled to claim compensation for the accident of this case against the Plaintiff. In addition, as claimed by the Defendants, the Defendants did not have the duty of care to install the window installed for preventing the fall of the dementia patients, ② breach of the duty of care not to prevent the fall accident due to the disease of the deceased, the dementia patient’s exchange, exchange, and exchange, and ③ breach of the duty of care not to prevent the accident even if they could have confirmed abnormal behavior of the deceased through CCTV.