beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the Defendant (Counterclaim)’s lawsuit regarding the amount of additional payment ordered under paragraph (2).
Reasons
1. The reason why this court should explain is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it refers to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Determination
A. According to the facts of recognition as the ground for the 1st responsibility of the occurrence of the liability for damages, the deceased, as a dementia patient with an aged age, not only inconvenience in moving, but also affected the function of drinking materials or drinking food, so it is reasonable to view that the plaintiffs providing medical care protection services to the deceased have caused the accident of this case due to negligence, which did not take measures such as aiding a bridge bridge, or assisting the deceased so as not to take any material other than food, while providing the deceased with food on a bridgebridge, and did not take measures such as aiding a bridge bridge, or preventing the deceased from taking advantage of a bridge bridge, and eventually caused the death of the deceased, which caused the death of the deceased. The deceased repeated discharge on five occasions as a result of this.
Therefore, the Plaintiffs are liable to compensate the deceased and the Defendants for damages caused by the instant accident caused by the said negligence.
The Defendants asserted that the Plaintiffs recommended the hospitalization of the Deceased on November 5, 2013 in which the instant accident occurred, and the Defendants unilaterally discharged the Deceased and aggravated the status of the Deceased even though they wished to be hospitalized. However, it is insufficient to recognize the fact that the Plaintiffs discharged the Deceased against the recommendation of the J Hospital or the Defendants’ intent as above, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently.
Rather, according to the statement No. 1-2 of the evidence No. 1-2 of the court of first instance, each fact-finding results of the J Hospital of the court of first instance, and the purport of the whole pleadings, the