logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2019.04.11 2018나60883
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

purport, purport, and.

Reasons

1. The reasoning for the court's explanation of this case is as follows, except for the addition of "the next 2. Additional Judgment" as to the plaintiff's additional arguments in this court, and therefore, it is identical to the ground for the judgment in the first instance. Thus, it shall be cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of

2. Additional determination

A. According to the Plaintiff’s assertion (Defendant B), according to a copy of the medical record (Evidence A) of the instant convalescent Hospital (Evidence A2), the deceased entered the deceased’s alz dementia.

The convalescent hospital of this case explained to the deceased, a dementia patient, a pledge of hospitalization that "a person takes no responsibility on the part of the hospital in respect of an accident related to the abortion that occurs in the course of his/her voluntary action" and received a private person. However, it is difficult to deem that there was a proper explanation on the above pledge of hospitalization to the deceased suffering from dementia.

Therefore, Defendant B, who is the operator of the convalescent Hospital of this case, should compensate for the damages caused by the instant accident.

B. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the convalescent hospital of this case, as the Plaintiff’s assertion, failed to provide a proper explanation as to the pledge of hospitalization that “the hospital shall not be held responsible for any accidents related to abortion that occur in the course of his or her voluntary action,” and received a private person from the deceased.

Even if the deceased lacks the ability to properly understand the above explanation due to dementia, the convalescent hospital of this case and the nursing worker of this case who should take measures, such as nursing, protection, etc. for the deceased in this case, were neglected for a long time after the death of the deceased.

In addition, after taking emergency measures against the deceased, the deceased did not immediately determine the measures to transfer the deceased to a larger hospital, but did not immediately determine the measures to transfer the deceased to the Plaintiff, who is the guardian of the deceased.

(2) a nursing person.

arrow