beta
Text
1. Defendant D’s medical corporation’s KRW 12,00,000, and each of the above amounts to Plaintiff B and C, respectively.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On December 31, 2015, while the deceased was suffering from dementia for several years, the deceased F was hospitalized in G Hospital operated by the Defendant Medical Corporation D (hereinafter “Defendant Foundation”) and the Defendant E was a doctor to treat the deceased as the head of the hospital at G Hospital.
B. The Deceased, on December 31, 2015, conducted at the time of hospitalization on December 31, 2015 (Mini-Mate State Exa-State Authority Inspection) divided the recognition function into several items. Of the total 30 points, the Deceased’s examination determines dementia depending on the sum of the points obtained by the inspector by item. Of the points obtained, the Deceased’s results show a serious dementia condition as low.
The inspection score is 23, GSS GDS (Glbal Deale), which is based on the rating criteria measuring the overall recognition of dementia patients and the degree of social functions, and refers to the status of a serious disorder in recognition of symptoms as the stage is higher. The 4th degree of dementia was 4, and the early dementia symptoms was 17, and GDS was 5, which was implemented on April 20, 2016.
C. On September 19, 2016, at around 09:30, the Deceased was killed on the front of H in the East Sea at around 10:06 on the same day while leaving G hospital without permission and getting on a bicycle (hereinafter “the instant accident”), and the Deceased transferred 12:06 on the same day through an emergency room of I Hospital, and died at around 13:45 on the same day.
Plaintiff
A’s spouse, Plaintiff C, and B are the children of the Deceased.
[Ground of recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 12 (including those with a serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The Defendants asserted to the effect that the instant lawsuit is unlawful, since the Defendants’ judgment on the main safety defense by the Defendants was made by the Plaintiff B, while hospitalized the Deceased, and the Plaintiff B did not hold the Defendant liable for all accidents that occurred against the Deceased.
According to the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, Plaintiff B.