205 Gohap3673 Claims for damages, etc.

1. AA;

2. BB

3. CCC;

4.D;

[Defendant-Appellee] Attorney Park Sang-hoon

의료법인 ★★★의료재단

Representative Z.

1. As to the grounds of appeal

담당변호사 YYY, QQQ

June 20, 2007

July 11, 2007

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff AA 120,77,396 won, the amount of KRW 2,00,000, the amount of KRW 1,000,000 for each of the above 1,00,000 won to the plaintiff CCC, and DD, and the amount of KRW 5% per annum from December 27, 2004 to July 11, 2007, and the amount of KRW 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. The plaintiffs' remaining claims are dismissed.

3. 3/5 of the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs, and the remainder is assessed against the defendant.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff AA 305,285,765 won, and the plaintiff BB 3,000,000 won, each of the 1,500,000 won to the plaintiff CCC, and DD 1,50,000 won, and 5% per annum from December 00, 2004 to the date of the pronouncement of this case, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

(a) Relations between parties;

원고 AAA는 피고가 운영하는 부산 **구 ▶동 000-75 소재 **** 기념 ♠♠ 병원(이하 '피고 병원'이라 한다)에서 협심증, 고혈압 등의 치료를 받던 중 저산소증에 의한 뇌손상을 입는 의료사고를 당한 자이고, 원고 BBB는 그 남편, 원고 CCC, DDD은 그 자녀들이다.

B. Treatment of the Defendant Hospital

(1) 고혈압으로 혈압강하제를 복용해 오고 있던 원고 AAA는 2003. 5. 00. 흉통, 식은땀, 호흡 곤란, 구토 등의 증상을 호소하며 **시에 있는 ♥♥병원으로 내원하였으나, ♥♥병원 당직의사의 권유로 당일 피고 병원 응급실로 전원한 후 불안정성 협심증 및 고협압 등으로 진단받고 입원하게 되었는데, 피고 병원 담당의사 EEE은 심장초음파, 관상동맥조영술, 흉부전산화단층촬영 등의 검진 결과 원고 AAA에게 관상동맥 폐쇄성 질환 증세가 있는 것을 확인하였으나, 관상동맥 협착 정도가 10% 미만으로 경증이고, 심장초음파결과는 정상이며 입원기간 중 원고 AAA의 흉통이 안정된 것 등을 감안하여 수술 요법이 아닌 약물요법으로 원고 AAA를 치료하기로 결정하고, 2003. 5. 00. 원고 AAA에게 혈관확장제 헤르벤 30g, 시그마트 5mg, 위장약 에이치투 200g 등의 3가지 약제를 9일간 복용하도록 처방한 후 퇴원하게 하였다.

(2) On June 0, 2003, after the discharge, Plaintiff AA complained of the pains that the chest was placed on the chest while receiving outpatients from the Defendant hospital. The doctor EE prescribed that the same medicine as the medicine was taken for 30 days at the time of the discharge.

(3) On June 00, 2003, Plaintiff AA complained of frequent pains on the breast part of the breast part while she was under her outpatient treatment by going to the Defendant hospital, and the doctor EE in charge prescribed that in addition to the existing prescription drugs to reduce the ples, the doctor EE prescribed that he/she she wears the blood sprinks and the esplates.

(4) On July 0, 2003, the doctor EE prescribed that the previous medicine should be taken for 30 days, and on August 00, 2003, the doctor prescribed 60-day medicine in order to reduce the frequency of chest generation and added it to the medication at the time of discharge to the medication at the time of discharge. In addition, the doctor prescribed that the 60-day medication 60g, 4mp, 5mmp, crym, 8mp, 12.5mg, crym, 15m, blood pressure hemthrosis, 15m, styrend, styrendine, 5mpherineine, fire extinguishing engine 100mg, and 12.22mphering presses, which are the blood pressure converging agents, etc.

(5) Meanwhile, between August 00, 2003 and October 0, 2003, Plaintiff AA had been under the control of the Defendant hospital to undergo the surgery on the cryp of the cryp of the cryp of the cryp of the cryp of the cryp of the cryp of the cryp of the cryp of the cryp of the cryp of the cryp of the cryp of the cryp of the cryp of the cryp of the cryp of the cryp of the cryp of the cryp of the cryp of the cryp of the cryp of the

(6) On October 0, 2003, EE heard the horses from the Plaintiff AA to the effect that breast fluor was dead, and prescribed that the blood fluorial fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoralsium was 20g tons of blood fluoral fluoralsium, 5mgs, 60gs of cluorral fluoralsium, 15mg of blood pressure debrisonium, 12.5mm of dluoral fluoral fluoral 10m of fluoral fluoral fluoral 10m of 5m of fluoral fluoral fluoral fluor, 5m of fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluor, for 200gs or 60m of fluorgs.

(7) The doctor EE on August 00, 2004, while Plaintiff AA had the symptoms, complained of sporadic smoke. As such, the doctor EE confirmed that for 1 year after blood testing conducted on September 00, 200, the Plaintiff AA had confirmed that the Plaintiff A had not been conducted any of the following tests for 1 year after the blood testing conducted on September 10, 2008:

(8) On the other hand, Plaintiff AA suspended drinking and smoking habits while treating drugs, and was somewhat increased at the time of receiving outpatient treatment on August 00, 2004.

(9) After that, the doctor who was in charge of the above EE had been treated by the FFFFFFFFFF of the Defendant Hospital in charge of the Plaintiff AA on the wind that the EE moves to another hospital, and the new FFF, which was the doctor in charge, has considerably reduced the prescription of the Plaintiff AA on October 104, 200, and provided that the Plaintiff AA, who was within its jurisdiction, with a significant decrease in the prescription during that period, only 10% of the blood transfusion expansion and blood pressure confrat, 10% of the blood pressure confrat, 0% of the blood pressure confrat, 0.25m of the hexat, and 100m of the profrat, and did not conduct any specific prosecutor prior to the prescription.

(1) From October 0, 2004 to October 0, 2004, Plaintiff AA took medicine according to the FF’s prescription. From October 23, 2004, around 23:50 on October 23, 2004, Plaintiff AA used the surgery for emergency cardiopulmonary resuscitation, and lost consciousness. From hospital to hospital by October 00, 004, Plaintiff AA was under treatment after being transferred to Defendant hospital in an obscure state where consciousness was unknown, but was suffering from brain damage due to low pulmonary resuscitation that occurred before cardiopulmonary resuscitation was performed.

(2) On November 0, 2004, Plaintiff AA transferred from the Defendant Hospital to the Memorial Hospital, and was under medical treatment at the UV Hospital from around May 13, 2005 again. However, at present, the symptoms, such as fall in awareness, fall in recognition function, language and disorder, light, and anti-explosion, are accompanied by construction of pipes and overall explosion, and there is little possibility of prosperity medically. The medical observation and tracking management is needed for the medical treatment, rehabilitation treatment, and prevention of merger.

[인정근거] 다툼 없는 사실, 갑 1 내지 7호증(각 가지번호 포함), 갑 10호증(가지번호 포함), 갑 11호증, 갑 12호증의 1 내지 3, 을 1 내지 7호증(각 가지번호 포함)의 각 기재, 증인 EEE의 증언, 이 법원의 ③대학교 ◈◈병원장에 대한 신체감정촉탁결과, 대한의 사협회에 대한 진료기록감정촉탁결과, ●●◆기념 ♠ ♠ 병원장, **기념 00병원장, ※※의료재단 ♥♥병원장, 종합특수보조기상사, 국민건강보험공단 부산지역본부에 대한가 사실조회결과, 변론 전체의 취지.

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Grounds for liability

(1) In order to be held liable for tort due to breach of the duty of care in medical practice or for non-performance of the duty of care should be premised on the existence of causation between the occurrence of violation of the duty of care and the occurrence of damages. However, the medical practice requires highly specialized knowledge. The process of the medical practice is limited to only a patient’s own knowledge, as the patient himself/herself can be aware of, and the method of the medical practice to achieve the result of the medical treatment depends on his/her own discretion. As such, the issue of whether the direct cause of damages occurred due to medical negligence is difficult to prove that the patient is an ordinary person who is not an expert, and it is extremely difficult to prove that the causal relationship between the patient’s breach of the duty of care in medical practice and the occurrence of damages is medically complete. However, if the patient proves that the patient’s act based on his/her common sense and that other causes than a series of medical practice cannot be opened at the time of the medical practice, the standard for determining the degree of harm arising from the medical practice should be based on the normative nature of the medical treatment system at least nine (10).

(2) 이 사건에 관하여 살펴 보건대, 앞서 본 인정사실 및 이 법원의 대한의사협회에 대한 진료기록감정촉탁결과에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하여 보면, 원고 AAA는 2003. 5.00. 갑자기 흉통을 호소하여 ♥♥병원을 통해 피고 병원 응급실로 입원한 이후 1년 5개월간에 걸쳐 피고 병원에서 진료를 받는 동안 일시 흉통이 완화되기는 하였으나 간헐적인 흉통은 지속되는 불안정성 협심증을 앓고 있었고, 피고 병원은 원고 AAA의 흉통 완화를 위해 지속적으로 혈관확장제, 혈압강하제, 소화기관제 등의 투약량을 증가시 켰으며, 스트레스로 인한 협심증의 발작을 예방하기 위하여 정신신경제까지 처방한 상태였으므로, 2004. 10, 00. 원고 AAA에 대하여 약제의 용량을 줄이기 이전에 혈관촬영, 심초음파검사 등을 통해 원고 AAA의 증상을 정밀하게 진단하여 투약의 감소여부를 신중하게 결정할 필요가 있었다고 할 것이며, 그렇지 않더라도 최소한 약물의 효과를 판독하기 위한 운동부하검사 혹은 방사선 동위원소 검사 등을 시행할 필요가 있었음에도 불구하고, 피고 병원 담당의사는 원고 AAA에 대하여 아무런 검사도 실시하지 않은 채 만연히 투약량을 급격히 감소시킨 잘못이 있다 할 것이며, 원고 AAA가 혈관확장제, 혈압강하제 등의 투약량이 대폭 감소된 2004. 10. 00.로부터 단 하루만에 호흡곤란으로 의식을 잃은 점에 비추어 보면 시간적으로 다른 원인이 개입할 여지가 있다고 보기도 어려우므로, 피고 병원이 원고 AAA에 대하여 사전 검사를 실시하지 않고 투약량을 대폭 감소시킨 과실과 원고 AAA의 불안정성 협심증이 악화되어 호흡곤란으로 저산소증 뇌손상을 입게 된 결과 사이에는 상당한 인과관계가 있음이 추정된다.

(2) Judgment on the defendant's assertion

In light of the following facts, the Defendant’s assertion on May 0, 203 that Plaintiff A had no record of 1’s disease, high pressure, and so on, it was difficult to recognize that Plaintiff A had no record of 3’s prescription, including 5mg, and 200 square meters of the Sim Embling, and that it was difficult to recognize that Plaintiff A had no record of 1’s prescription for the following reasons: (a) it was difficult to recognize that Plaintiff A had no record of 1’s prescription before the date of their release; and (b) it was difficult to recognize that Plaintiff A had no record of 1’s prescription before the date of 204 on which it was found that Plaintiff Embling’s disease; and (c) it was difficult to recognize that Plaintiff A had no record of 1’s prescription before the date of 204’s diagnosis and treatment; and (d) it was difficult to recognize that Plaintiff A had no record of 1’s prescription before the date of 26 October 204.

(3) Sub-decisions

Therefore, the defendant is liable for all property and mental damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the tort of the medical personnel of the defendant hospital as the employer.

B. Limitation on liability

However, in full view of the fact that Plaintiff AA had had had symptoms, such as an unstable threat, high blood pressure, etc. before entering the Defendant hospital, and had drinking and smoking habits in the past, and Plaintiff AA’s failure to promptly undergo emergency resuscitation, etc., imposing all responsibility for the medical accident of this case on the Defendant is deemed unreasonable in light of the good faith and the principle of equity, and thus, the Defendant’s liability ratio is limited to 1/4.

3. Scope of damages.

[Ground of recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 7, 8, 9, 11 through 14 (including each number), and the court's request for physical examination to the head of the hospital same as the university, the purport of the whole pleadings.

(a) Actual income:

(1) Facts and details of assessment

(A)gender: Date of birth of a woman: August 00, 1900 maximum working age: 60 years old: 100 per cent

Name of rental: 1.45 (applicable to the rate of reduction of life in 38.17)

(B) From October 27, 2004 to December 31, 2004, 1,156,430 won (-52,565 wonx 22 days) (i.e., 1,156,870 won (=52,585 wonx 22 days) from January 1, 2005 to August 31, 2005 (i.e., 52,585 won) 1,167,980 won (i.e., 53,090 wonx 22 days) from September 1, 2005 to December 31, 2005 to December 31, 2005 (i.e., 208 won) 1,167,980 won (i., 53,090 won to August 31, 2006) to 208,2015 to 26.208 won (i. 25, 26.25)

The income of the Plaintiff AA from October 27, 2004, which was the date of the instant accident, to March 27, 2016, which was the date of the lease from October 27, 2004, pursuant to the Hofman Calculation Act, is calculated at the present price (if the income is less than a month and less than a won, it shall be rounded; hereinafter the same shall apply) as follows:

① From October 27, 2004 to December 31, 2004, KRW 156,430x1,9875x1,9875x2,298,404 won

(2) From January 1, 2005 to August 31, 2005 8 months.

1,156,870 wonx100%x (9.7773- 1.975) = 9,01,785 won from September 1, 2005 to December 31, 2005

1,167,980 wonx100%x (13.5793 - 9.773) = 4,440,695 won

(4) From January 1, 2006 to August 31, 2006 8 months.

1,215,544 wonx100%x (21.074-13.5793) =9,029,182 won from September 1, 2006 to December 31, 2006

1,250,084 Wonx100x (24.6369-21.074) =4,537,179 won

6) From January 1, 2007 to February 29, 2016, 110 1,272,040 x100 x (1074 - 24.6369) x shall be 105,490,913 x 134,808,158 x 134,808 x 158 x (1) x 3 x 4 x 58 x 4 x 58 x 4

나. 기왕 치료비 합계35,934,239원 (♥♥병원 88,640원+♠♠병원 2,151,960원+ ◎◎병원 6,684,499원 + VV병원 27,009,140원)

(c) Future treatment costs;

(1) Details and costs

In light of the content and progress of treatment, Plaintiff AAA needs not be able to defend later, and continues to require medication and rehabilitation treatment in the future for women in the future. In addition, medical observation and tracking management for the prevention of complications are necessary, as well as improvement of brain functions, anti-competitive agents, anti-competitive agents, anti-competitive drugs, and drug treatment for the workplace during women is necessary daily, and it is necessary to conduct hospital treatment for about 15-30 days during women during women for the treatment of complications that may arise due to disability. The expenses are required to be more than 2,00,000 won per year during women’s life, and as the plaintiffs seek, the future medical treatment costs shall be more than 2,00,000 won per year as the plaintiffs seek.

(2) Since there is no evidence that the cost incurred until the date of closing the argument in the instant case was either considered or otherwise disbursed as the above, the cost from June 21, 2007 to March 27, 2016, which is the date following the date of closing the argument in the instant case, would be deemed as KRW 13,480,083 [=2,00,000 x 1/12x (10.20 - 2040- 2040, 27.3235] if the cost was calculated as the present price in accordance with the Hofman Accounting Act, which is the date of closing the argument in the instant case.

(d) Nursing expenses;

(1) the period of opening and the acquisition of a bank;

Plaintiff AA is in a state in which it is impossible to independently perform basic daily activities, such as meals, spathing, bathing, urine, and urology, due to the decline in the overall recognition function due to severe brain damage, language disorder, and spawn symptoms, etc., and it is necessary for Plaintiff AAAA to continuously remove the smoking of the spawn part due to the engine renovation. Therefore, it is necessary to continuously provide nursing between 24 cc. per day during the life.

(2) Since there is no evidence that the cost incurred until the date of the closing of the argument in this case was either considered or spent as the above, the cost incurred from June 21, 2007 to March 27, 2016, which is the date following the date of the closing of the argument in this case, is calculated as the current cost of 284,487,722 won [x 2x 57,820 wonx 365 days/12x 365 days (10.2040-27.3235). However, the Plaintiffs are seeking only 258,887,107 won which is less than these, as the future opening cost. Accordingly, this is followed.

E. Limitation of liability

10,77,396 won = (134,808,158 won in lost profits + 35,934,239 won in treatment expenses + 13,480,083 won in future + 258,87,107 won in nursing expenses) 1/4)

(f) consolation money;

(1) Grounds: Gender and age, family relations, the background and result of the accident of this case, the father and degree of the subsequent disability, the defendant's limitation of liability, and other various circumstances shown in the arguments of this case.

(2) The amount determined;

(A) Plaintiff AA: 10,000,000 won

(B) Plaintiff BB: 2,000,000 won

(C) Plaintiff CCC, DD: each KRW 1,000,000

G. Sub-committee

Therefore, the defendant hospital is obligated to claim against the plaintiff AA regarding the 120,777,396 won (i.e., property damage 110,77,396 won + consolation money 10,000,000 won + consolation money 10,000, and consolation money 1,000,000,000 won to the plaintiff CCC and DD and each of the above amounts after the accident of this case, and to claim against the plaintiff AA as to the existence and scope of the obligation of this case from December 27, 2004 to July 11, 2007, which is the date of the judgment of this case, 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act, and 20% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

The presiding judge, associate judge and assistant judge

Judges Nationwide

Judges or higher;