beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the defendant against the plaintiff C and D shall be revoked, respectively, and the revoked part shall be applicable.
Reasons
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. The reasoning for this part is as stated in Paragraph 1 of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for the following part of the reasoning for this part is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance.
B. On September 27, 2017, the defendant was convicted of a fine of KRW 3 million on September 27, 2017 in relation to the instant surgery (around 2015 Gowon District Court Decision 2017No7624, Apr. 6, 2018). The defendant appealed against the judgment of dismissal of appeal on April 6, 2018 (Seoul District Court 2017No7624). The above judgment becomes final and conclusive on April 14, 2018. 2) The judgment of the court of first instance 3rd and 14 of the judgment of the court of first instance is deemed to be “A. B.”
3) The third part of the judgment of the first instance is “A” in the 19th part of the judgment, and “A” in the 19th part of the judgment of the first instance is “A” in the 20 and 21th part of the judgment of the first instance. The 3rd part of the judgment is “a loss suffered by the plaintiff B, C, and D, who is the plaintiff A and his/her spouse.”
5) On the fourth 16th tier judgment of the first instance court, “Plaintiff A” is deemed to be “Plaintiff A”. 6) Following the fifth tier judgment of the first instance court, the following is added.
Article 752 of the Civil Act provides for consolation money for plaintiffs C and D in the case of infringement of life, but this provision is an example provision, so even in the case of tort not violating life, the lineal ascendant, lineal descendant, and spouse of the victim of the tort can claim consolation money pursuant to Articles 750 and 751 of the Civil Act, which are the general principles by proving the mental suffering (see Supreme Court Decision 98Da41377, Apr. 23, 199). In this case, the evidence submitted by the plaintiffs alone is not sufficient to prove that the plaintiff Gap et al. suffered bodily injury due to the defendant's medical negligence.