207Na5303 Compensation (Definition)

1. Maximum ○○ (00000 - 00000)

2. Maximum○○ (O00 - 00000).

3. ○○ (OO - OOO).

4. Maximum○○ (00000 - 00000).

[Defendant-Appellee] ○○○○ 000 000 - 00

Plaintiff 1 and 4 are respective minors, and their legal representative ○○, the mother

○ ○

1. west ○○;

Gwangju Nam-gu OO 000 - 0 000 - Within the clinic of the Gu Council

2. Kim○○ (OO -OOO).

Gwangju Dong-gu ○ 000 - 00 OOO - 0000

Gwangju Dong-gu ○○○○○ - ○○, 2nd floor Kim ○○

3. Prostitution ○○;

○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ Division in order to ensure that the Republic of Korea, the Republic of Korea, the Republic of Korea, and the Republic of Korea

Defendant 1 through 3, Counsel for the defendant 1 to 3

4. ○○○○ Hospital.

Gwangju Dong-gu 000 Ghana

Representative Director YOO

Law Firm Locom, Counsel for defendant-appellant

[Defendant-Appellee]

Gwangju District Court Decision 2004Gahap11300 Decided September 20, 2007

October 15, 2008

October 29, 2008

1. Of the judgment of the first instance court, the part against the plaintiffs falling under the following order of additional payment shall be revoked.

Defendant Seo-○, Kim ○, and ○○○ shall pay to each of the plaintiffs 29, 956, 716, and 7, 120, 114 won to the plaintiff ○○○○○, the plaintiff ○○○○, the plaintiff 2,00,000 won, and 50,000 won to the plaintiff ○○○, and 20% interest per annum from August 25, 2001 to October 29, 2008, and 5% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. The plaintiffs' remaining appeal against Defendant Seo-○, Kim ○, and Ma○○○, and the appeal against Defendant ○○○○ Hospital and the appeal against the plaintiffs by Defendant Seo-O, Kim ○, and Ma○○○○, respectively, are dismissed.

3. The plaintiffs and the defendant Seo-○, Kim ○, and Male-○○○ are 60% of the total litigation costs incurred between the plaintiffs and the defendant Seo-○○○○○, and the remaining 40% of them are borne by the plaintiffs, respectively, and the appeal costs incurred between the plaintiffs and the defendant ○○○○ Hospital are borne by the plaintiffs.

4. The monetary payment portion of paragraph 1 above may be provisionally executed.

1. Purport of claim

The Defendants: 92, 391, 792 won to each of the Plaintiffs ○○○; 24, 196, 635 won to the Plaintiff ○○○, and the Plaintiff

The defendant on 10,00, 000 won, 5,000, 000 won to ○○○, and each of the above amounts to ○○○○.

○○, Kim ○, and Ma○○ were from August 16, 2001 to the Defendant Hospital, and from November 12, 2001 to the Defendant Hospital, each of the instant cases.

Until the service date of a copy of the complaint, 5% per annum and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

D. The sum of the calculated amounts is paid.

2. Purport of appeal

A. The purport of the plaintiffs' appeal

The part against the plaintiffs in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked. The defendants shall each be the largest of the plaintiffs to the plaintiff ○○.

87, 391, 792 won, Plaintiff 23, 196, 635 won, Plaintiff ○○○, Plaintiff 9,000, 000 won, and Plaintiff ○○.

Defendant Seo-○, Kim○, and leap○ with respect to each of the above amounts of KRW 4,50,000 and each of the above amounts to ○○○, on August 16, 2001.

From November 12, 2001 to September 20, 2007, Defendant Hospital: 5% per annum and from the next day to that of September 20, 2007

Until the date of full payment, 20% interest per annum shall be paid.

B. Defendant Seo-○, Kim○-○, and Maap○’s appeal

The part of the judgment of the first instance against the Defendants shall be revoked. The plaintiffs' claims corresponding to the revocation part shall be revoked.

each of them is dismissed.

1. Basic facts

가. 원고 최○○에 대한 서○○안과의원의 진료 ( 1 ) 원고 최○○이 충혈, 햇빛에 눈을 찡그리는 증상 등을 보이자 그 어머니인 원고 이○○은 원고 최○○을 데리고 2001. 8. 16. 피고 서○○이 운영하는 서○○안과의원에 내원하여 피고 윤○○로부터 진료를 받게 되었는데, 위 피고는 만년필형 회중전등 ( pen light, 이하 펜라이트라고 한다 ) 으로 원고 최○○의 왼쪽 눈을 검사한 후 상세불명의 급성결막염으로 진단하고 안약을 처방하였다 . ( 2 ) 원고 이○○은 피고 윤○○로부터 지시받은 대로 원고 최○○에게 안약을 투약하다가 같은 달 25. 다시 위 의원에 내원하였고, 피고 김○○는 펜라이트로 위 원고의 왼쪽 눈을 검사한 후 결막염이 완치되었다고 하였다 .

B. (1) When the same symptoms continue to exist with the Plaintiff ○○○○ Hospital (hereinafter “Defendant Hospital”), despite the medical treatment of the Plaintiff ○○○○○○○○○○ (hereinafter “Defendant Kim○”) on the part of the Defendant Kim○○, the Plaintiff ○ was at least the Plaintiff ○○, and ○○ was at the Plaintiff’s left seat on November 12, 2001, and there was a sporadation and sposium on the part of the said Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff was urged to undergo a close inspection. On the same day, the medical professionals of the Defendant Hospital visited the Defendant Hospital on the same day. (2) On the day, the medical professionals conducted the Plaintiff’s best ○○○○○’s movement on the part of the Plaintiff, the external eye movement on the outside, and the examination on the front part of the Plaintiff Kim○○○○, but failed to verify the size of the spoke and the spoke-out surgery on the part of the Plaintiff, and thus, attempted to prevent the Plaintiff from spreading and the Plaintiff from spreading.

(3) On the 27th day of the same month, the medical professionals at Defendant Hospital held that it is impossible to recover the eyesight due to Plaintiff ○○○’s most left eye blurgical culgical culgical culgic culgic culgic culgic culgic culgic culgic culgic culgic culgic culgic culgic culgic culgic culgic

C. Progress after surgery and the present condition of Plaintiff ○○○○

On December 19, 2001, Plaintiff ○○○○ and Lee ○○○ was diagnosed as the net booming of the left eye, the brupted body, the brupted body, the ex post facto operation of the white site, and the crupting external crupt, and then received the said Plaintiff’s survey on February 15, 2002, on the ground of the following: (a) the Plaintiff’s maximum corrective vision was conducted in the state of 0.32 and (b) the crupting crush of the front eye of the eye; and (c) the Plaintiff’s crupted body for the recovery of visual power or the suppression of the installation of internal crupted body; and (d) the Plaintiff’s crupted body. At present, the Plaintiff’s maximum corrective vision was in the state of crupting (ororal).

라. 관련의학지식 ( 1 ) 포도막염 ( 葡萄膜炎, Uveitis ) 안구벽의 외막과 내막 사이에서 중간층을 형성하는 혈관성 조직으로서 홍채, 모양체 , 맥락막으로 구성되는 막을 포도막이라고 하고, 이곳에 염증이 발생한 경우를 포도막염이라 한다 .

The symptoms are sacrific down, eye, sacrine, eye, etc., and when the sacratitis is diagnosed, the therapy begins to provide a large active treatment. The therapy uses internal medicine (deficiency agents, etc.), but differs depending on the detailed diagnosis name of the sacratitis.

If it is neglected without treating it, it may cause a visual disorder or a visual disorder due to the occurrence of a white paper, melting paper, red vegetable oil, net booming, net booming, yellow half-class, yellow burging, and burgical burging, etc. according to the serious degree, duration, etc. of salt, and finally, it may not be maintained by the safe burgical axis itself.

(2) When the snow of the primary glass (PHPV) is created from the mother body, the primary glass body was created, and this is almost left out and the structure of the normal glass body was formed. In the event of birth, most of it is the structure of the primary glass body. As the fetus’s primary glass body’s incineration was incomplete and continuous proliferation of it, it shows a variety of visual conditions up to the real name to the point of view.

In most cases, most of them are divided into a whole form, a rear form, and a mixed type, depending on the location of the disease. There are various kinds of mergers, such as gymnasium, gymnasium, net gymnasium, white bemnasium, glass bemnasium, glass bemnasium, and post-revision bemnasium, and gymnasium, gymnasium, and gymnasium, etc.

The results of the examination to confirm the increase of the primary emullopic emull, the emullating test, the emullating test, the emullion test, the CT, and the MRI are selected for each patient.

For the purpose of the therapy and the preservation of the eye for sex purposes, it is necessary to perform an operation as soon as possible for the development of vision. For the purpose of the development of vision, it is necessary to expect the improvement of vision. Even if it is performed, it is very poor for the post-marcing or mixed type accompanied by the de-marction, but as a whole, 57% of the re-marction is very poor for the whole.

(3) The network prevention is the body located within the inside part of the inner hole, which is the most important part of the view, and is composed of the inner one's inner one's red layer and the outer one's outer upper part, and there is a potential space between the two floors, so if this difference falls short of the two floors, it will be a net.

When the net studio is in progress, the studio is spreading the car, so that the studio can studio in front of the snow, and when the state of the studio continues for a long time, it is combined with a white, an information-oriented blood, and a melting studio, and an information-oriented studio.

One of the most severe complications of gromatic glass, which is a gromatic fluent fluorial fluorial fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral flus

[Reasons for Recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 4, 7, 8-3, 5, 9, Eul evidence Nos. 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 5, and 8, each of the evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 5, and 8, each of the evidence Nos. 4, 7, 8, the results of the examination of the medical records conducted by the president of the Korea University Hospital; the results of the examination of the medical records conducted by the president of the first instance court and the president of the Korea University Hospital; the results of the

2. The parties' arguments and issues

A. The plaintiff's assertion (1) Defendant Kim ○, Ma○, and Ma○○ had a typical symptoms, such as the following: (a) the plaintiff's argument (1) was friend of the above plaintiff's inside tool at the time of treatment; (b) the left eye was sensitive to light; and (c) the left eye showed a small figure compared to the right eye; and (d) the symptoms showed a typical symptoms; (b) the plaintiff should have conducted an inspection for accurate diagnosis as to which disease occurred; (c) the above plaintiff was fried to a sudden brithmosis; and (d) the plaintiff did not explain the method of medical care to be taken after the completion of medical treatment; and (e) the above plaintiff was caused by the real name of the above plaintiff; and (e) the defendants and the defendant Seo-○, the employer, the above defendants and the defendant ○○, each of the plaintiffs should compensate for damages suffered by the plaintiffs.

(2) On November 12, 2001, although the medical personnel at Defendant Hospital diagnosed that Plaintiff ○○○ was seriously in an emergency operation, without conducting an emergency operation, immediately aggravated the Plaintiff’s condition by performing an operation to remove the bag, and entered the bagth in a congenital bag, a merger witness bag which occurred due to the neglect of bagitis into the bagical bag. After the operation, the medical personnel at Defendant Hospital diagnosed that the bag remains in the above Plaintiff’s real name, such as the baging of light on the left side of the bag, thereby giving the Plaintiff an opportunity to recover the bagthy for more than three months after the operation at the bag in a bag, and caused the need for additional operation to prevent the bagthy, thereby failing to explain the Plaintiffs’ damage to the Defendant Hospital.

B. The Defendants’ assertion (1) Defendant Seo-○, Kim○, and leap○○

The reason why the Plaintiff ○○○ was the real name of the Plaintiff is not a gymnasium caused by sporasium, but a congenital disease caused by the primary flusium increase, so there is no negligence or breach of duty of explanation by the said Defendants’ diagnosis and treatment, and even if the reason is the real name of the glusium caused by household glusium infection, the Defendants did not have a glusium to the Plaintiff ○○○ at the time of treatment, and this was caused after the treatment by the said Defendants.

(2) The defendant hospital's assertion

In the event that Plaintiff ○○ repeatedly takes a water surface leading drug, there was a concern about possible side effects and failed to complete the necessary inspection on the day of all, and the removal of the water surface was delayed, and it was stated that it was a congenital in congenital in lethal in lethal in lethal in lethal in lethal in lethal in leths, and there was no diagnosis as such. At the time of the Plaintiff’s transfer to Defendant Hospital, there was no possibility of restoration of lethal in lethic in lethic in lethic in lethic in lethic insulthic in lethrosis at the time of the Plaintiff’s transfer to Defendant Hospital

C. Key issue of the instant case

Therefore, the key issue of the instant case is: (a) whether the cause of Plaintiff ○○○ was polymitis; (b) whether Defendant Kim○○, and Ma○○○ was erroneous in the course of treating the said Plaintiff; (c) whether the said Plaintiff’s lebane surgery was delayed to the Defendant hospital; (d) the said Plaintiff’s lebane was congenital in a astronomical white site; and (e) the said Plaintiff’s lebane remains; and (e) whether there was an error in the said Plaintiff’s diagnosis of the fact that there was no explanation on the need for surgery to curb the lebalone; and (e) whether there was an error

3. Existence of liability for damages;

A. What is the cause why the Plaintiff ○○○ was the real name (the key issue ①)

(4) According to the medical records appraisal conducted by the principal of Korea University, ○○○○○ was found to have been aware of the symptoms revealed at the time of being treated at the Defendant Hospital, such as ○○○○○○○○○○○○ University’s symptoms of 100 marction, and marction for a long time, and may have been generated by the combination of primary marcation, and according to the medical records appraisal conducted by the principal of Korea University, it can be seen that there was considerable possibility of spreading the above Plaintiff’s marction on the left side of the hospital at the time. However, according to the above circumstances and evidence, it is insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff’s maximum marcation for 100 marcationiculection for 100 marction for the above Plaintiff’s 6th marculection, and that there was no other evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff’s marculculic marction had to be separately discovered.

B. According to the facts found by the above Defendants, whether Defendant ○○○○ or Kim○○ was erroneous, (2) the liability for damages occurred (A) and the above Defendants’ fault, it is difficult to view that Plaintiff ○○○○ had symptoms of sacrine, sacrine sacrine sacrine at the time of receiving medical treatment from Defendant Kim○, ○○, and ○○○○○. Thus, the fact that Plaintiff ○○○ had symptoms of sacrine sacrine sacrine and sacrine sacrine sacrine at the time of receiving medical treatment at Defendant hospital was acknowledged as above. However, it is difficult to view that the above symptoms at Defendant hospital did not appear to have been diagnosed by the above Defendants for a period of 30,00 months, which was the period until the time of receiving the medical examination from the above Defendants, and that Plaintiff ○○○ was unable to have an explanation of the above symptoms of the Plaintiff’s s sacrine sacrine.

In light of the fact that the above Defendants did not discover that the treatment of the surgery, etc. on the primary dysium was conducted due to the proliferation of the primary dysium, and that the treatment of the surgery, etc. on the primary dysium was conducted on the left side of the above Plaintiff at the time, it is reasonable to deem that the above Defendants did not have been in serious condition to the extent that the dysium, which was under way with the above Plaintiff, was unable to provide future treatment. Therefore, the above Plaintiff’s error in the diagnosis as above by the above Defendants put the opportunity to receive early treatment of the dysiumium.

(C) Due to the above mistake by Defendant Kim ○, and Ma○○○, the Plaintiff who was the largest ○○○○ caused damages to lose the ability due to the Plaintiff’s failure to receive early appropriate treatment. As such, the Defendants and Defendant Seo-○, the said employer, are liable to compensate for the damages suffered by each of the Plaintiffs. (2) The limitation of liability is limited.

Where damage occurs or has been expanded by competition between harmful acts and the factors of the victim, even if the factors of the victim's side are irrelevant to the causes of the victim, such as the risk of physical talent or disease, in light of the form, degree, etc. of the disease, if it violates the principle of comparative negligence by applying the principle of comparative negligence to determine the amount of compensation, the court may take into account the factors of the victim who contributed to the occurrence or expansion of the damage (see Supreme Court Decision 98Da50586 delivered on January 21, 200).

In light of the aforementioned legal principles and facts acknowledged earlier, it is recognized that the increase in the primary emullosis that occurred to Plaintiff ○○○○ was a disease caused by congenital factors, and that in the case of the above disease, it does not always recover the eyesight even if the treatment was commenced at an early stage, and that the above Plaintiff who was 2 years of age at the time of the treatment did not cooperate with Defendant Kim○○ and Ma○○○, and it is difficult for the above Defendants to make accurate diagnosis. These circumstances are acknowledged that the above Defendants were unable to make accurate diagnosis. These circumstances should be taken into account in calculating the amount of damages to be compensated by the above Defendants in light of the ideology of the damage system that provides the fair and reasonable burden of damage as the guiding principle. Therefore, considering all the circumstances revealed in the argument of this case, such as the circumstance leading to Plaintiff ○○○○’s real name, the ratio of liability of the above Defendants should be limited to 40%.

C. Whether the Defendant hospital delayed the surgery and was negligent (c) whether there was a fault in the process of the surgery, and (d) whether there was a fault in the process of the surgery; (e) negligence in the process of the surgery;

The fact that the Defendant hospital did not perform the surgery on the day of the Plaintiff’s ○○○’s electric power source is recognized. However, on November 12, 2001, the Defendant hospital’s medical personnel failed to perform the surgery on the day of the Plaintiff hospital’s operation on two occasions to examine the condition of the Plaintiff’s view on November 12, 2001, the Defendant hospital’s medical personnel did not perform the surgery again on the 19th day of the same month, which later than the day after the said Plaintiff failed to do so, and conducted the surgery again on the 27th day of the same month. However, in light of the fact that the Defendant hospital’s medical personnel did not perform the surgery on the day, inasmuch as the Plaintiff’s failure to perform the surgery on the day was a medical personnel of the Defendant hospital, the Defendant hospital’s medical personnel did not perform the surgery again on the 19th day of the same month. This part of the allegation is without merit.

(2) The negligence in which the combined witness of the sporadity sporadsium was entered in a congenital white paper.

As seen above, this part of the assertion on the premise that the cause of the plaintiff ○○○’s back eye was caused by a primary emulhosis, and that it is difficult to view it as a witness of the merger of polymitis, and therefore, this part of the argument is without merit. (3) Although there is a emulhosis remaining, there is no negligence misunderstanding this part of the argument.

In addition, there is no evidence to acknowledge the plaintiffs' assertion that ○○○ was able to recover eyesights through the surgery even after the surgery was performed at the Defendant Hospital. Moreover, the medical records of the above hospital do not appear to have been able to be recognized by the medical records appraisal results of the head of the Korea University Hospital, namely, the following circumstances, which can be acknowledged by the medical records appraisal results of the above hospital. On November 19, 2001, it was almost impossible for the defendant hospital to recover eyesights because it did not appear to have been able to have been able to recover eyesights of the above hospital because it did not appear to have been able to have been able to recover eyesights of the above hospital. In light of the fact that the medical records of the above hospital did not appear to have been able to have been able to have been able to recover eyesights of the plaintiff at the time of early operation at the Seoul Asan Hospital, and that it was difficult for the plaintiff to claim that the above ○○ hospital was able to recover the above part of the surgery, and that the plaintiff's surgery was conducted for recovery.

(4) Negligence not explaining the necessity of an operation to suppress an spawn;

In full view of the evidence No. 9-2 and No. 5-2 and the medical record appraisal results and the overall purport of the arguments at the Korea University Hospital, the medical personnel of the Defendant Hospital determined that it may require an internal surgery with respect to the Plaintiff ○○○○○, and later, to preserve the said Plaintiff’s safety equipment, it seems that it was necessary to explain it to the Plaintiff’s guardian. Thus, the Plaintiffs’ assertion that there was no explanation is without merit.

4. Scope of damages.

A. Plaintiff ○○○’s property loss: lost income;

(1) Based on the facts of recognition and evaluation as follows, an interim interest rate of 5/12 per month shall be calculated at the present price at the time of death according to the heading-man calculation method, which deducts the interim interest at the rate of 5/12 per month as follows:

(1) Facts of recognition and evaluation;

(1) Gender: The date of birth of male: August 9, 1999.

Age: 71. 71. 71. 31.

② The operating period and the number of working days: The 22th day of each month from August 9, 2021, when the said Plaintiff became an adult, completed military service for 24 months after the said Plaintiff became an adult, to August 8, 2059.

③ At the time, the above Plaintiff was residing in Gwangju Metropolitan City, which is an urban area, and thus, an ordinary worker’s wage of 5,252 won is paid for daily work.

(4) The ratio of latter disability and labor ability loss: The ratio of permanent loss of 32% labor ability in the real name of a unit (based on recognition) shall be calculated (based on recognition), without any dispute over the permanent loss of labor ability of 32% in the real name of a unit, entry in the evidence No. 2-1, physical appraisal result of the head of the New Village Sypin Hospital affiliated with the school of the year, empirical rule, and overall purport of pleadings (based on monthly basis;

From August 9, 2021 to August 8, 2059, KRW 55,252 for 456 months x 22 days x 32% x 32% x 160. 409 = 62,391, and 792 B. The fact that the purchase cost (a) of the auxiliary equipment (the amount sought by Plaintiff ○○○○ within the aggregate amount of evidence No. 5) is recognized for the maximum amount of the Plaintiff’s property damage (a) : 3,521, and 735 won (the amount sought by Plaintiff ○○○○ within the scope of evidence No. 5).

From March 30, 2005 to November 19, 2072, 1.5 years, 500,000 won must be purchased and worn.

[Grounds for Recognition] The calculation of the results of physical appraisal by the head of the New Village Synish Hospital annexed to the New Generation School (B)

46 times: 571 50% x 18. 5571 x 571 x 9,278,550 won x 62,391 ,792 (2) : 12,800,285 won (30% + 9,278,550 won) : 40% : 0% ; 200 won ; 30% ; 200 won ; 30% ; 20% ; 30% ; 40% ; 24, 956, 716 ; 5, 120 ; 5, 120 ; 14 ; 30% ; 1.3% ; 30% ; 1. ; 30% ; 1. ; 200 ; 3. ; 3. ; 4. ; 1. ; 2. ; 3; 3. ○○○’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’ al. circumstances.

(e) Total sum (1) Plaintiff ○○○○○○○○: KRW 34,956,716 ( = 24,956,716 + KRW 10,00,000 + KRW 2) Plaintiff ○○○○○○, 114 won ( = 5,120, KRW 114 + KRW 3,00,000 + KRW 3,00,000). Plaintiff ○○○○○, Plaintiff 1,000: KRW 1,00,000;

F. Sub-committee

Therefore, Defendant Seo-○○, Kim○, and Maap○○ are as follows: ① 34,956, 716 won to Plaintiff ○○○, and 5,000,000 won recognized by the first instance court among them, and the final diagnosis date of the said Defendants, respectively.

25. From the beginning, it is recognized that the defendants' defense against the existence and scope of the above obligation is reasonable.

As to Sep. 20, 2007, which is the date of adjudication of the first instance court, 5% per annum under the Civil Act until September 20, 2007, 20% per annum under the provisions of the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment, and 29,956,716, which are additionally recognized at the trial at the trial ( = total amount of 34,956, 716 - 5,000, and 00 won per annum) as to the existence or scope of the above Defendants’ obligations from August 25, 2001 to the date of adjudication of the first instance court, which is deemed reasonable to dispute as to the existence or scope of such obligations.

29. Not later than five percent per annum; twenty percent per annum from the next day to the date of full payment; two hundred percent per annum; two hundred and twenty percent per annum from the next day to the date of full payment; two hundred and twenty percent per annum from the next day to the date of full payment; five percent per annum from the first instance judgment from August 25, 2001 to the date of the first instance judgment; five percent per annum from the next day to the date of full payment; five percent per annum from the next day to the date of full payment; one hundred and twenty percent per annum from the next day to the date of full payment; one hundred and twenty percent per annum from the first instance judgment to the date of full payment; and one hundred and twenty percent per annum from the first instance judgment to the date of full payment; and one hundred and twenty five percent per annum from the second instance judgment to the date of full payment; and one hundred and twenty five percent per annum from the first instance judgment to the date of full payment; and one hundred and five percent per annum from the first instance judgment to the fifth day.

20. 5% per annum under the Civil Act, 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment, 20% per annum under the provisions of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, 2,00, and 00 won ( = total amount 3,00, 000, - 1,000, and 00 won per annum from August 25, 2001 to the date of full payment, 0. 5% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment, 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment, 1,000 won per annum under the provisions of the Civil Act, 20. 5% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment, 1,000 won per annum from the first instance to the date of full payment, 20% per annum from the 20. 5% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment, 20% per annum from the judgment of 20.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims against the above defendants were accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and each of the remaining claims against the above defendants and the claims against the defendant hospital against the defendant are dismissed as it is without merit. However, since part of the part against the plaintiffs in the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair, each of the part against the plaintiffs was partially accepted and it is revoked, and each of the above part is ordered to pay the above amount additionally recognized at the trial against the defendant Seo ○○, Kim ○, and Ma○○. Since the remaining part of the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, the remaining part is legitimate, and each of the appeals against the above defendants against the defendant hospital and appeals against the defendant hospital and against the defendant Seo ○, Kim ○, Kim ○, and ○○○, and Ma○○ were dismissed as it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Do charter of judge

Judges Cho Jae-jin

Judges Lee Hon-