2020Na 2011849 Damage (ar)

1. A;

2. B

1. Korea;

2. Social welfare foundation C;

3. D hospital:

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2020Na532797 Decided February 18, 201

September 24, 2020

November 1, 2020, 26

1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant Republic of Korea is revoked, and the plaintiffs' claims against the defendant Republic of Korea are dismissed.

2. The plaintiffs' appeals against the defendants and the claims against the defendant Republic of Korea and D Hospital extended or added by the plaintiff B in this court are all dismissed.

3. The total cost of the lawsuit between the plaintiffs and the defendant Republic of Korea, the appeal cost incurred between the plaintiffs and the defendant social welfare foundation C, and the litigation cost incurred after the appeal between the plaintiffs and the defendant D Hospital shall be borne by each plaintiffs.

1. Purport of claim

The Defendants paid to each of the Plaintiffs A 200,000,000 won, 100,000,000 won to the Plaintiff B, and 12% interest per annum from November 26, 2015 to the date of this judgment, and from the next day to the date of full payment (the Plaintiff withdrawn the part of the Plaintiff’s claim in relation to the claim for consolation money due to the network E and A’s infringement on the network E’s right to self-determination of treatment, and accordingly, the part of the judgment of the first instance became null and void. The Plaintiff B extended the Defendant’s claim for consolation money due to the deceased E’s infection and death and the infringement on the network E’s right to self-determination of treatment, and ② Defendant D Hospital added compensation for consolation money due to the network E’s infringement on the right to self-determination of treatment).

2. Purport of appeal

A. The plaintiffs

The part of the judgment of the first instance against the plaintiffs falling under the amount ordered to be paid under the above shall be revoked. The defendant Republic of Korea shall revoke the part against the plaintiffs in the judgment of the first instance. 26,00,000 won to the plaintiff Eul, 24,000,000 won to the plaintiff Eul, 13,200,000 won to the plaintiff Eul among the above amounts jointly with the defendant Republic of Korea, and the defendant D Hospital shall jointly pay the plaintiff Eul 15,20,000, and 18,800,000 won to the plaintiff Eul from November 26, 2015 to August 5, 2020, and 12% per annum from the next day to the day of delivery of a copy of the application for alteration of the purport of the appeal to the plaintiff Eul, and 15,200,000 won to the plaintiff Eul among the above amounts, and 15,200% per annum from each of the above amounts to the defendant Republic of Korea.

6. The Defendants: consolation money due to the death of the deceased E; ② Plaintiff B, Defendant Republic of Korea, and D Hospital sought respectively payment of consolation money due to the infringement of the deceased E’s right to self-determination of treatment of the corpse).

B. Defendant Republic of Korea

The text of paragraph (1) is as follows.

1. As to the basic facts, the claim against the Defendant, 2. 3. With respect to the claim against the Defendant Foundation, the claim against the Defendant Foundation on April 1, 200, this Court stated this part of the claim against the Defendant D Hospital as to this part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, given that the part of the judgment of the first instance is written or added as follows, it is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of

[Supplementary or added parts]

Part 10, Nos. 17, 30, 12, 31, 12, 33, 17, 34, 11, 18, 35, 16, and 36, "the court of first instance" shall be construed as "the court of first instance". The whole purport of the arguments in the above evidence No. 18, 11, "the whole purport of the arguments in the above evidence" is "the whole purport of the statements and arguments in Nos. 5, 10, 20, and 19, 31, 33, 17, 34, 11, 18, 35, 16, and 36, 100, 100, 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,00.

In the 4th 20th 20th 12th 24th 4th 4th 4th 4th 4th 6th 6th 10

E. Determination on causation

1) In order to determine that Defendant Korean public officials of the Republic of Korea caused the death to be infected by Messen by negligence of delaying the diagnosis and the epidemiologic investigation on the scope of contact persons, if the above negligence did not exist, it should be recognized that the patient was suspected of having been infected by Messen infection and was able to take measures for isolation by tracking the patient’s Messen infection before the patient was placed at the emergency room of the F Hospital like the Deceased on May 27, 19, 5, 19, and 14. However, in addition to the evidence mentioned above, considering the following circumstances revealed by Defendant B’s overall purport of the descriptions and arguments on the evidence Nos. 24 through 27, 29, 30, 33, and 6, as well as the whole, there is no evidence to find that there was a proximate causal relationship between Defendant Korean public officials’ negligence and the deceased’s Messens infection as they delayed the diagnosis examination on the patient No. 1 and conducted an epidemiological investigation.

① During the period from May 15 to May 17, 14, the patient appears to have been infected by the Mes from G Hospital one patient at the G Hospital, and on May 18, 10:0, the F Hospital reported one patient to the public health clinic in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government as a patient suspected of having been infected. Accordingly, even if the Messcop diagnosis and epidemiological investigation were conducted for the patient once thereafter, such circumstance alone could not prevent the patient from being interrupted or preventing the patient from being infected by the Mescop infection at 14th patients.

② It seems that the scope of contact points from the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention was expanded and examined on May 28, 200. It was possible to recognize that the 6th patient is much more than the previous one through the World Health Organization (WHO) and Syd Halth Oratia, and that it was possible to do so. Around May 20, 200, the patient was confirmed to have been exposed to the same space as the one known at the time, in light of the radio wave history and radio wave mode of the Mes virus, etc. of the Mes virus virus, and that only those who were in common with the same space as that of the Mes disease were exposed to the disease at the time, and that the Mesium guidelines (WHO) of the World Health Organization were closely contacted with the patient at the time, and that the Mesium was able to directly visit or directly visit the patient at the distance of the disease at the time, as well as those who were in close vicinity with the patient at the time.

③ According to Section 2 of the Messen Management Guidelines at the time of the patient’s diagnosis, the scope of the person closely contacted with the patient is defined as “a person who has made physical contact with the patient at least one hour at a space within 2 meters of symptoms, or a public official of the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, even if there was no negligence by failing to conduct an epidemiological investigation on the scope of the patient at least 14 hours, the patient is designated as closely contact with the patient, and the possibility that the contact between the patient and the deceased would be interrupted is not high. Meanwhile, in Section 2 of the Messen Management Guidelines, it is difficult to view that there was no negligence by the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, etc. at least 14 times in the case of the patient’s ordinary contact with the patient, or by the patient’s daily contact with the patient(e.g., marriage, funeral, church, etc.). However, it is difficult to see that the patient was at least 14 times designated as a public official of the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Prevention, etc.

④ During the period from May 27 to May 29, the Deceased presumed to have been infected by the Mes from the emergency room of the F Hospital to 14th patients. The determination of the Mesium for the patients at 14 times and the epidemiological investigation for the patients at 14 times was conducted thereafter. In addition, in light of the fact that public officials of the Republic of Korea analyzed CCTV with the cooperation of the F Hospital, identified the contact with the patients at 14 times, and confirmed the personal details of the contact, etc., and confirmed the contact, it appears that considerable time would take place, five days (at least 2 days, and maximum 14 days). The Mes mold rate was about 40%, and it is difficult to readily conclude that Defendant 1’s CCTV treatment was conducted by a public official of the Republic of Korea through an epidemiological investigation, etc., even if Defendant 14 was given an early opportunity for treatment of the infected patients due to the development of the Mes infection system.

2) Furthermore, we examine whether the causal relationship between the negligence of the public officials belonging to the Defendant Republic of Korea and the deceased’s death is acknowledged or not. The following circumstances are revealed by comprehensively taking account of Gap evidence Nos. 8, Eul evidence Nos. 12 through 24, the results of the medical record appraisal entrustment to the president of the first instance court, and the overall purport of the pleadings. ① The Deceased was infected by Mesium, but the symptoms related to Mesium were lost due to the active treatment of F Hospitals and D Hospital medical professionals (this seems to have been caused by the outbreak of viral viral gral gral gral gral gral gral gral gral gral gral gral gral gral gral gral gral gral gal gral gral gral gal gral gral gal gral gral.

F. Sub-committee

Ultimately, the Director of the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention under the Defendant’s Republic of Korea delayed the diagnosis of a patient under the report of a patient suspected of having been filed, and conducted an epidemiological investigation on the scope of contact points of the patient No. 1, but it cannot be deemed that the deceased was infected or died by Mes. Therefore, the causal relationship between the Defendant’s public official’s negligence and the deceased’s Mes infection or death cannot be acknowledged. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs’ assertion against the Defendant Republic of Korea cannot be accepted as it is.

Part 1 "6.3." and Part 12 "6.1...." in Part 26, Chapter 1 ", 27.4." shall be applied to "6.4."

② As seen earlier, it appears difficult for the medical personnel of the F Hospital to recognize the possibility of infection at the time of the emergency room of the patient at 14th, as seen earlier. After undergoing a tuberculosis inspection at the I Hospital (AFB), the 14th patient took the result of the examination, which was a voice, and thus shows low possibility of tuberculosis, and the J of the Mean in charge also appears to have been suspected of pulmonary tuberculosis rather than pulmonary tuberculosis. ③ In the case of pulmonary collection, it is known that it would be possible to prevent the possibility of being infected to other patients by having the patient enter the hospital due to suspension, handout, etc., and accordingly, it is known that the F Hospital's medical personnel of the F Hospital was 14 times to have the patient wear a skek (N95) for preventing non-end infection. ④ From 14 times to 14 times to 14 times to 14 times to 14 times to 14 times to 14 times to 14 times to 14 times to be isolated from pulmonary tuberculosis.

3) Whether the Messen examination on the Deceased was delayed

As seen earlier, the Deceased appears to have shown pulmone and heat (exploitic symptoms due to re-exploitation of spiles) from May 27, 200 to June 17, 200. As seen earlier, the Deceased’s symptoms became worse, such as the absence of heat from June 2, 200 to June 21, 200, and the re-exploiting of heat after April 21, 200 are as follows: (i) the following circumstances revealed by the description and arguments of evidence No. 6; (ii) the Deceased’s Mespatosis infection subject to Mespheric genetic testing at the time were closely connected with me; and (iii) the Deceased’s Mespheric infection was not closely suspected of being infected with the Deceased’s Mespheric disease, and (iv) the Deceased’s Mespheric disease was not closely known as the mepheric PC’s disease.

Part 36, letter 13, following the phrase "as it may be called ".........................................................

④ It is difficult to find out clinical reports on the treatment of patients suffering from mers infection and forest type together with the deceased, as well as there is insufficient medical grounds to recognize that there is gold factors that it should not be administered without prescribing shot acid in advance in the treatment of hyp species, regardless of the fact that blood toxicity and ties are encouraged to wear low-capacity acids in order to reduce infections. ⑤ Since the deceased has deepened hyp infection due to hyp aggravation, it cannot be readily concluded that the hyp value of the hyp was maintained to such a degree that the hyposis was maintained to the extent that the hypitis would continue to be administered.

5. Summary of the assertion of infringement of the right to self-determination on the disposal of a corpse

A. Plaintiff B’s assertion

Although the Deceased was judged to have rarely lost symptoms at the time of the Deceased’s death and to have very low infection, the Defendant Republic of Korea, without any legal basis, determined the method of disposal of the Deceased’s body, such as, without regard to the body of the deceased, the method of disposal “the body of the deceased’s body to be placed in the low-priced body body bags, the body autopsy prohibition, and the body cremation treatment, etc.” as to the body of the deceased. Moreover, without any explanation on the condition of the deceased’s infection and other methods of the body treatment than cremation at the time of his death, the medical staff at Defendant D Hospital unilaterally determined the cremation treatment of the deceased’s body and performed cremation of the deceased’s body. Accordingly, the Defendant Republic of Korea and D Hospital jointly infringed the Plaintiff’s right to self-determination on the body treatment of the deceased’s body, who was the manufacturer of the deceased.

B. Determination

1) According to the overall purport of the Plaintiff’s identification results and arguments, as follows: (a) Defendant D Hospital’s medical personnel was determined as a result of the Meso gene test (PCR) conducted on October 12, 10; and (b) it appears that the genetic test (PCR) was different from the clinical aspect of the Mes infection patient due to the respiratory symptoms, and that the genetic test (PCR) value fell under the boundary value due to the fact that the deceased’s Mes infection fell under the boundary value, and that the genetic test (PCR) value fell short of the clinical aspect of the Mes infection patient due to the lack of pulmonary symptoms, not the virus, but the Mesium 18,19, and Eul’s 18, and the Plaintiff’s Meso’s 18, and the entire purport of this court’s Meso’s identification results and arguments. It is recognized that the deceased’s Mesium’s Mesium was sealed and sealed into the Mesium infection.

2) However, in light of the following facts and circumstances, Eul’s evidence Nos. 20 through 22, Eul’s evidence Nos. 1, 3, 5, 8, 12, 13, 18, and 26 through 28, and the result of the first instance court’s entrustment of the medical record appraisal with respect to the president of the Hassociation of the first instance court and the overall purport of the pleadings, it is difficult to view that the circumstance or evidence submitted by the Plaintiff B’s assertion or submitted by the Defendant Republic of Korea and D Hospital infringed the Plaintiff B’s right to self-determination on the body treatment of the deceased, who is the supervisor of the deceased, and there is

① After the death of the deceased, the medical team at Defendant D Hospital confirmed that the legal representative of Plaintiff B confirmed the Plaintiff’s intention of autopsy, and the staff of the infection control team explained the funeral procedures by means of cremation without the autopsy, and then took follow-up measures to prevent the spread of mers.

② According to the Messen Response Guidelines (No. 3-3 of June 7, 2015) at the time of the deceased’s death, where the body remains in the body, the body autopsy is prohibited in order to prevent it from spreading through the body autopsy or air if the body remains in the body. In the Messen infection Control Guidelines (No. 2015, Jun. 30, 2015), the symptoms suspected of being infected with Messen infection are to be treated as the body of the confirmed patient. The body of the confirmed patient provides that, in principle, the body sealed, disinfected, and discharged the body by inserting the personnel who have worn protective equipment at the time of consultation with the bereaved family, and then cremation the body in order to prevent infection. In addition, it is not prohibited by law, but it is practically impossible to take measures to prevent infection, such as the protection and taking of the surrounding person, etc., and thus, it is not recommended.

③ The right to self-determination of a dead person on the treatment of the corpse of an ancestor may be restricted for the prevention and spread of infectious diseases. In this regard, “The Act on the Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases” was revised on December 29, 2015, which was after the death of the deceased, and “The Minister of Health and Welfare may restrict the method of funeral, etc. of the corpse to the extent necessary to prevent the death of a patient with an infectious disease (including a person who is confirmed to have been in possession of the pathogen of an infectious disease after the death) and the spread of an infectious disease” (see Article 20-2(1)).

④ At the time of re-hospitalizeing the Defendant D Hospital, the Deceased was presumed to have been infected with the stroke symptoms caused by the aggravation of the stroke, and there was no suspicion of pulmonary symptoms such as the respiratory symptoms, but it cannot be readily concluded that the stroke infection was lost due to the absence of such symptoms. Furthermore, the Deceased’s ability to destroy virus due to the stroke disease was reduced, so it was difficult to avoid the risk of change in the infection and the possibility of spread depending on the changes in the state of the Deceased. In this regard, the Defendant D Hospital’s infection and the medical personnel described to the effect that the 100% infection cannot be determined to have little infection in the case of the deceased at the time of the 10th visit, but in fact, the Deceased appears to have the pulmonary symptoms such as the stroke or the respiratory column from October 13 to 10.

⑤ In the Meso gene testing (PCR) performed after the Deceased re-hospitalized the Defendant D Hospital, training and voice have been repeated, and the symptoms have continued, and on November 22, the results of 199, the results of the Meso gene testing (PCR) have been trained, and a new pulmonary state has been discovered in the chest CT test. Accordingly, the medical personnel of Defendant D Hospital began to administer the Messen, which is an antivirative medicine, once it is judged that the Messen’s re-hospitalize could not be excluded from the recurrence of Messs, and the Messen, which is an antivirative medicine, re-Medication.

④ At the fourth meeting of the Defendant D Hospital held on November 24, 199, the medical personnel of the Defendant D Hospital identified the possibility of spreading the deceased as “at present, but it is highly likely that the deceased might have been infected due to the decline in the state of immunity, etc., so the medical personnel of the Defendant D Hospital should continue infection control at a negative pressure isolation room and to deliver it to the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.”

6. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims against the defendants shall be dismissed in its entirety due to the lack of reasonable grounds. Since the part against the defendant's Republic of Korea among the judgment of the court of first instance is partially unfair, the appeal against the defendant's Republic of Korea shall be accepted, and the part against the defendant's Republic of Korea in the judgment of first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiffs' claims against the defendant's Republic of Korea corresponding thereto shall be dismissed. The plaintiffs' appeals against the defendants and claims against the defendant's Republic of Korea and D Hospital expanded or added by the

The presiding judge, judge and assistant administrator;

Judges Kim Gin-jin

Judge Cho Jong-sung

1) The term “Salvage Chemicals Act” means, in the event of failure in the primary anti-line cancer treatment, the next step is attempted to do so.

The term "hyman chemical law" refers to the overall control of antichemical law. The probability of seeing the effect rather than the primary treatment has decreased, but it is necessary to remedy hyman chemical in accordance with the form of paper.

A part of a patient may be completely cured from a patient under the Act.

2) A part of the dead virus’s genes is in the physical speed, with the decline of the respiratory cells, and the pulmonary angle is discharged; and such pulmonary angle is the same.

It was found that the PCR test was found.