logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2017.12.14 2017가단205155
손해배상(의)
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 24,625,39 as well as 5% per annum from February 22, 2016 to December 14, 2017 to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. 1) On February 22, 2016, the Plaintiff is a hospital run by the Defendant C (hereinafter “Defendant Hospital”).

(2) The Plaintiff received a conical signboard removal notice from the Plaintiff. (2) The Plaintiff received a conical signboard removal notice, and transferred it to the restoration room, and the nurse of the Defendant Hospital left the front left side of the Plaintiff’s hospital and the front side of the complex.

However, the plaintiff suffered a picture of 15cm on the left-hand side x 8cm, 21cm on the left-hand complex x 9cm size 2.0cm on the left-hand side.

[Reasons for Recognition] A’s motion picture, Gap’s motion picture, Gap’s evidence No. 3, the result of this Court’s commission of physical appraisal to the director of the hospital of Chungcheong University, the purport of the entire pleadings

B. Inasmuch as the studio of high temperature of responsibility can induce images, and the Plaintiff was unable to completely recover the sense of the skin, the medical personnel at the Defendant hospital was responsible for compensating the Plaintiff for the damages caused by the instant accident as an employer, since the medical personnel at the Defendant hospital was negligent in failing to comply with its duty of care to prevent the location of images due to the inherent factors of the Defendant hospital by either providing a studio, etc. for video prevention, or by observing closely the Defendant hospital’s medical personnel, etc.

C. The defendant's assertion seems to have been fully aware of the important factors of the plaintiff, and the nurse was also able to pay attention to the husband who is the guardian, so the above circumstances should be considered in calculating the amount of damages that the defendant should compensate.

However, at the time of the accident, the Plaintiff cannot be concluded to have recovered from the sense to the extent that it can reduce the temperature immediately after the surgery. It is difficult for the Plaintiff’s husband, who has no medical knowledge, to easily predict the circumstances that the Plaintiff could have suffered pictures due to the important factors.

arrow