Yannam University Hospital (Law Firm New Daily, Attorneys Southern-si et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Defendant 1 and one other (Law Firm Sejong, Attorneys Shin Young-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

August 23, 2017

Daejeon District Court Decision 2016Gau317154 Decided February 10, 2017

1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The Defendants jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff 9,806,120 won with 15% interest per annum from January 26, 2016 to the day of full payment.

3. The total costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Defendants.

4. Paragraph 2 can be provisionally executed.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

A. Status of the parties

1) Defendant 1 received surgery and medical treatment from the medical personnel affiliated with the Plaintiff Chungcheongnamnam University Hospital (hereinafter “Plaintiff Hospital”), which is a medical corporation (hereinafter “Plaintiff hospital”), and led to the vegetative state of plant life due to the said medical personnel’s negligence (hereinafter “instant medical accident”).

2) Due to the instant medical accident, Defendant 1 was hospitalized in the Plaintiff hospital from October 29, 2004 to January 201, 2016, and Defendant 2, the husband of Defendant 1, guaranteed the Defendant 1’s obligation to pay medical expenses to the Plaintiff hospital.

B. Progress of medical lawsuit

1) The first medical lawsuit

The Defendants and the Defendants’ children Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2 (hereinafter “Defendant 1, etc.”) filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff Hospital against the Plaintiff Hospital for damages compensation arising from the instant medical accident (the Daejeon District Court 99Gahap2618), but the said court dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim. Accordingly, the said appellate court’s judgment became final and conclusive on July 25, 2003 by calculating the Plaintiff Hospital’s negligence on January 17, 2003 (4.43 years of the life expectancy), and based on the presumption of Defendant 1’s female life as the Plaintiff Hospital’s negligence on April 23, 2004 (4.43 years of the life expectancy), the said appellate court’s judgment became final and conclusive as Supreme Court Decision 2003Da1026161 Decided July 25, 2003.

2) The second medical lawsuit

Defendant 1 was alive after the life expectancy anticipated in the first lawsuit. Accordingly, on April 27, 2004, Defendant 1 et al. filed a claim against the Plaintiff Hospital for compensation for additional damages incurred by Defendant 1’s survival beyond the originally predicted life expectancy (Seoul District Court Decision 2004Gadan19705). The above court partially accepted Defendant 1’s claim and dismissed the rest of the Plaintiffs’ claim except Defendant 1. Accordingly, Defendant 1 et al. appealed to the Daejeon High Court 2005Na2972, and the above appellate court recognized Defendant 1’s name until June 14, 2012 ( maximum of August 4, 201) and limited the liability of the Plaintiff Hospital to 80% on the condition of Defendant 1’s survival.

The disbursement period of the detailed items of the table contained in the main sentence, 419,820,820, 100 YY 1,200,00 YY 1,200 YY YY - 58,689,792 future 206.6.14, 2012.6.520,000 YY YY YYY 419,820

On April 13, 2007, the above judgment was finalized by dismissal of the appeal (Supreme Court Decision 2006Da78640).

3) The third medical lawsuit

Defendant 1 was alive after the life expectancy anticipated in the instant secondary medical lawsuit. Accordingly, Defendant 1 et al. filed a claim against the Plaintiff Hospital for further damages incurred by Defendant 1’s survival beyond the initially predicted life expectancy ( Daejeon District Court 2014Gahap1021). The said court partially changed the judgment of the second medical lawsuit subject to Defendant 1’s survival. Accordingly, the Plaintiff Hospital appealed to Daejeon High Court 2014Na12506 on January 1, 201, and Defendant 1 filed an incidental appeal seeking the increase of the nursing costs recognized in the first instance judgment on the ground that the daily wage has increased from January 1, 2014.

The above appellate court, upon Defendant 1’s claim, acknowledged the payment of KRW 1,985,094 in a lump sum for living expenses (on the day from January 1, 2013 to July 9, 2014, which is the date of the closing of argument in the first instance trial), and dismissed Defendant 1’s claim for the purchase of future treatment expenses and auxiliary equipment (on the day from January 1, 2013 to the day of closing of argument in the first instance trial), on the condition of Defendant 1’s survival, the said appellate court dismissed the judgment by deeming that the payment of KRW 195,494 in a lump sum for living expenses (on the day from August 9, 2014 to January 28, 2016, and the maximum working age (on the day from June 24, 2006 to September 28, 2037) conflict with the res judicata effect of the second medical lawsuit (on the day of closing of argument in the second instance judgment).

C. Unpaid medical expenses of the Defendants

The Defendants did not pay KRW 9,806,120 to the Plaintiff Hospital for medical expenses incurred from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 1 to Eul evidence 4, Gap evidence 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. Determination on the cause of the claim

According to the above facts of recognition, Defendant 1 is an obligor who received direct medical treatment, and Defendant 2 is a joint and several surety for Defendant 1’s obligation to pay the medical expenses to the Plaintiff Hospital, and Defendant 2 is jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid medical expenses 9,806,120 won from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2015 and the delay damages therefrom.

B. Determination as to the defendants' assertion

1) The Defendants asserts as follows.

The service costs claimed by the Plaintiff hospital are merely incurred in compensating for losses caused by illegal acts against Defendant 1 of the Plaintiff hospital. Thus, the Defendants did not have any obligation to pay the above service costs.

2) As seen earlier, at the first instance court of the third medical lawsuit, Defendant 1 claimed additional damages equivalent to the king treatment expenses and future treatment expenses incurred from June 14, 2013. However, the first instance court dismissed Defendant 1’s claim against the king treatment expenses incurred from June 14, 2013 to the date of closing argument in the first instance trial. The appellate court dismissed Defendant 1’s claim against the future treatment expenses and support expenses recognized by the first instance court on the ground that the res judicata effect is against res judicata effect. Accordingly, active damages, such as nursing expenses and future treatment expenses, which the Plaintiff hospital is liable for with respect to Defendant 1, are merely compensation for the damages incurred to Defendant 1’s hospital, even if the damages incurred to Defendant 1 were assessed as compensation for the damages incurred by Defendant 1’s active treatment expenses incurred by Defendant 1’s hospitalization, etc. until June 14, 2012.

3) The Defendant’s assertion on this part is rejected.

C. Sub-decision

Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff hospital the unpaid medical expenses of KRW 9,806,120 from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2015, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from January 26, 2016 to the date of full payment, as sought by the Plaintiff hospital.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted with merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, the plaintiff's appeal shall be accepted, and the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the defendant shall be ordered to pay the recognized amount, and it is so decided as per Disposition

Judges Lee Young-young (Presiding Judge)

Judges who are unable to sign and affix a seal on the last day of childbirth;