205 Ghana 76743 Compensation (Definition)

Kim 00 (00000 - 00000)

Daegu Dong-gu 00 Dong 000 - 00

Attorney Park Jae-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant 000

Medical Corporations 00000

Daegu Dong-gu 00 Dong 000 - 00

Representative President 000

Attorney Park Jae-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant 000

May 9, 2007

May 30, 2007

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 3,00,000 won with 20% interest per annum from July 23, 2005 to the day of full payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Three-minutes of litigation costs are assessed against the Plaintiff. The remainder is assessed against the Defendant, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The defendant delivered to the plaintiff KRW 10 million and a copy of the complaint of this case to the plaintiff

The payment of 20% interest per annum from the date of full payment shall be made.

1. Basic facts

A. The National Health Insurance Corporation’s health examinations include three types of primary health examinations, secondary health examinations, and specific cancer inspections. The first health examinations are conducted at the National Health Insurance Corporation’s expense for persons subject to health examinations for the pertinent year as stipulated in the National Health Insurance Corporation’s health examination implementation contract. The second health examinations are conducted at the Corporation’s expense within 10 days for suspected diseases of the persons determined to have a disease as a result of the first health examinations. The specific health checkups bear 80/100 of the expenses for inspections conducted at the request of the persons subject to cancer checkups. In the case of a specific cancer examination, the second health examinations do not require the Corporation to conduct secondary health examinations, etc.

B. On August 9, 2002, the Plaintiff was commissioned by the National Health Insurance Corporation to conduct health examinations on behalf of the Defendant Foundation at a 00 hospital operated by Defendant Foundation (hereinafter “Defendant Hospital”). As the primary health examination and specific cancer examination at the hospital (hereinafter “Defendant Hospital”), the Plaintiff was subject to the said cancer (on-site border examination) and the relevant cancer cancer examination.

C. After that, on August 29, 2002, the plaintiff presented an explanation that the result was derived from the chronic infection in the intra-scopic tissue testing at the defendant hospital.

D. According to the results of the primary health examination and cancer examination conducted by the Plaintiff from September 16, 2002, the primary results of the examination were normal, and there was a opinion that there was a specific cancer test that there was a need to provide an increase in the number of conditions in the above-mentioned and/or US infections, and that there was a need to undergo a re-examination, such as a tracking malphym test, because there was a string of less than 10 meters on the right side of the bank as a result of the simple shooting of the relics of the bank, and that there was a doubt that there was a protruding cancer

E. According to the notification determined by the Ministry of Health and Welfare, when an examination institution conducts a specific cancer test, the examination institution must send a notice of the results of the examination of cancer to the relevant inspector within 15 days from the completion date of the specific cancer test, despite the fact that the Defendant sent the notice of the results of the examination of cancer to the relevant inspector, the Defendant sent the results of the examination of October 28, 200 and the specific results of the examination

F. Afterwards, the Plaintiff was diagnosed as celebite cancer at the Gyeongbuk University Hospital on December 2003, and was administered on the right side of the same month on around 16th of the same month.

[Ground for recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence 2, 13-1 through 3, Gap evidence 14, 15, Eul evidence 1-1, 2, Eul evidence 3, Eul evidence 5-2, witness 00, fact inquiry results with the president of the National Health Insurance Corporation, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. According to the medical examination guidelines publicly notified by the Ministry of Health and Welfare, the Plaintiff asserts that, within 10 days after the second medical examination, the Plaintiff is liable to compensate for damages caused by negligence. (1) Although the duty of care to take the second medical examination to a person determined as a heart of a disease was to undergo the second medical examination within 10 days to the doctor belonging to the Defendant hospital, the above doctor was negligent in medical care not taking measures to undergo the second medical examination within 10 days despite the Plaintiff’s determination as a heart of a disease as a result of the first medical examination. This negligence led to the Plaintiff’s failure to undergo the second medical examination within 1 year and 3 months after the medical examination, and the Defendant did not have a duty to compensate for damages caused by the second medical examination. (2) The Plaintiff did not have a duty to undergo the second medical examination within 20 days after the second medical examination or on the premise that the second medical examination was not conducted within 10 days after the second medical examination.

B. The Plaintiff’s assertion and determination of damages for infringement of the right to self-determination due to the delay in the notification period or loss of the treatment apparatus (1)

Next, although the Plaintiff had a duty to inform the Plaintiff of the necessity of the Defendant to undergo an additional medical examination, if the Plaintiff had been diagnosed as a result of a specific cancer testing that the head of the singular singular singular singular singular singular singular singular singular singular singular singular singular singular singular singular singular singular singular singular singular singular singular singular ssing

8. In a case where the Plaintiff was negligent in failing to perform his/her duty of care as a doctor by preventing the Plaintiff from receiving surgery for the purpose of the therapy at the Gyeongbuk University Hospital for one year and three months until the time of receiving the surgery for the purpose of the therapy, the Plaintiff asserts that all of the Plaintiff’s lost income. Medical expenses, future medical expenses, and consolation money should be compensated for all of the damages incurred by the Plaintiff. (ii) Whether the Defendant was negligent in doing so.

Therefore, as seen earlier, according to the fact that doctors belonging to the Defendant hospital explained the Plaintiff that the result of the health cryposis-related chronic infection in the organization test on August 29, 2002, it can be recognized that the result of the internal cryposis test was occurred at that time. However, it is insufficient to recognize that the result of the basin cancer test was reached around that time, and there is no evidence to support that the above doctors were aware of the result of the Plaintiff’s basin cancer test on August 29, 2002.

However, according to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to notify the plaintiff of the result of the cancer inspection within 15 days after the result of the cancer inspection. In September 16, 2002, a specific cancer inspection result had been conducted on September 16, 2002, and the result of the cancer inspection was notified to the plaintiff from September 16, 2002 until October 1, 2002, which was after 15 days from September 16, 2002, but the result of the inspection was notified to the plaintiff on October 31, 2002. The result of the inspection was found to be at least one month or later.

Although there is negligence of delay in notification of the result of the above examination to the defendant, such negligence is irrelevant to the negligence in medical practice, and there is no evidence to prove causation between the defendant's delay in notification and the plaintiff's occurrence. Furthermore, even in order to estimate causation between the defendant's delay in notification and the plaintiff's delay in notification, there is no evidence to prove that there was no health defect at the time of medical practice. Rather, according to the above basic facts, the plaintiff is deemed to have a health defect at the time of specific cancer testing, and as long as the plaintiff was notified of the possibility of delay in notification and the problem caused by negligence was resolved in whole after being informed of the defendant's one-month delay in notification and the result of the examination, one year and two months after notification of the result of the examination, and there is no evidence to prove that there was no health defect at the time of the medical act, nor there is no evidence to prove that there was a health defect at the time of the medical act, and the plaintiff's allegation that there was a possibility of delay in notification or aggravation in the medical procedure was no reason for the plaintiff.

(B) Determination on the claim for consolation money

However, the plaintiff is obligated to compensate the defendant for consolation money, since he/she has suffered from mental distress due to the wind that the prosecutor's notification of the result of the examination would lose an opportunity to receive treatment for the period of one month or delay. Thus, the plaintiff's notification of the result of the examination does not completely infringe the plaintiff's opportunity to receive treatment for one month, but it is merely a delay of one month due to the delay of the plaintiff's notification of the result of the examination for one month, and the plaintiff's notification of the result of the examination did not actually receive treatment for one year and two months, and when considering all the circumstances shown in the argument of this case, it is reasonable to determine consolation money for mental distress due to the loss of the plaintiff's opportunity to receive treatment for one year and two months.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay at the rate of 20% per annum from July 23, 2005 to the day of full payment after the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of full payment, as requested by the plaintiff, to the plaintiff as consolation money for the loss of treatment opportunity. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder of the claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Park Young-ho

- - - Other