A duty of care to a tuberculosis patient as a public health clinic who gives Leptospira to a tuberculosis patient.

In light of the current general medical level, it can not be seen in advance whether or not a shock is generated by a irpirposisce to a tuberculosis patient. Therefore, in light of the current general medical level, it is urgent and serious conditions that the patient's disease symptoms at the time of the injection should be replaced with other medicines despite the existence of other medicines that can be replaced with the disease symptoms at the time of the injection, and in the case of injection of the medicines, it is necessary to take first aid measures such as the diagnosis of whether the patient or his family has a career of a drug shock, preparation of medicines, etc. to be used at the time of the shock, etc., and in the case of a shock during one hour after the injection, if the shock occurs after the injection, it was found that there was a voice without meaningful meaning, as a result of the reaction test that was conducted after the injection, it was found that there was a shock and first aid treatment for the patient after the injection.

Articles 750 and 756 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law No. 553No. 9840) (Law No. 3299 delivered on June 12, 1984) 82Do3199 delivered on December 28, 1976

Plaintiff 1 and three others

Pyeongtaek-gun District

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 7,923,136 won to the plaintiff 2, 11,684,704 won to the plaintiff 3, 400,000 won to the plaintiff 4, and 5% interest per annum from May 17, 1984 to the day of full payment.

2. The plaintiffs' remaining claims are all dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The defendant pays 12,322,200 won to the plaintiff 1, 8,048,130 won to the plaintiff 2, 11,822,200 won to the plaintiff 3, 500,000 won to the plaintiff 4 and 500,000 won per annum to the time of full payment from May 17, 1984 to the time of full payment.

The judgment that the lawsuit costs shall be borne by the defendant and the declaration of provisional execution

1. Establishment of liability for damages;

성립에 다툼이 없는 갑 제1호증의 1(제적등본), 2(호적등본), 그 제2호증(주민등록표등본), 그 제6호증의 3(의견서), 4(범죄인지보고), 5(변사사건발생보고 및 지휘품신), 7,10,11,16(각 진술조서), 9,15(각 수사보고), 12,17(각 피의자신문조서), 원본존재 및 성립에 다툼이 없는 을 제1호증의 2(사실과 이유), 5(부검소견서사본), 7(수사협조의로에 대한 회시사본), 9(사건처분통지사본)의 각 기재와 증인 소외 1의 일부증언에 변론의 전취지를 모아보면 피고 군 산하의 (명칭 생략)면 보건진료소 소장 겸 보건진료원인 소외 2가 1984.5.17. 06:00경 위 보건진료소에서 결핵균등 감염에 의한 늑막염등을 앓고 있던 망 소외 3으로부터 위 망인이 전날 (명칭 생략)면사무소에서 결핵환자로 등록하고서 받아온 스트랩토마이신 1그램 짜리 주사약 8개중 1개를 주사하여 달라는 부탁을 받고 위 망인의 좌측팔에 피부반응시험을 하여 음성으로 나타나자 위 주사약 1개를 위 망인의 좌측 엉덩이에 주사하였는데, 위 망인은 위 주사를 맞은 직후 그곳에 올 때 데리고 왔던 만 1세된 그의 딸인 원고 2를 남겨 놓고 밖에 나가서 그날 13:00경 같은 동네에 사는 소외 4에 의하여 보건진료소 뒤 하수도 옆 공터에서 하반신이 벗겨진 사체로 발견된 사실, 소외 2는 위 망인이 원고 2를 남겨두고 진료소밖으로 나가자 원고 2는 2시간동안 울고 있었는데도 위 망인이 다른 볼일을 보러 나간 것으로만 생각하고 위 망인의 집에 연락하여 원고 2를 데려가도록 한채 계속 다른 환자들만을 돌보고 있다가 소외 4에 의하여 비로소 위 망인이 진료소 밖에서 죽어 있음을 알게 된 사실, 스트렙토마이신에 의한 쇼크를 일으키면 대변을 보고 싶은 증상을 느끼게 되며, 위 망인에 대한 사체부검결과 위 망인은 약물에 대한 애너필래틱 쇼크(Anaphylatic Shock)로 인한 성인성 호흡곤란증후군(Adult respiratory distress syndrome)과 신장손상으로 급사한 것으로 밝혀진 사실, 스트랩토마이신은 곰팡이의 일종으로부터 생산되는 항생재로서 그람 음성균 및 결핵균에 항균작용이 있어 우리나라의 국가 결핵관리체계에서 표준조치로 처방에 포함되어 있으나 쇼크의 위험성 때문에 일반병원에서는 사용하지 않고 가격이 싸기 때문에 영세민에게 지급되고 있으며 결핵균에 대한 치료제로는 그밖에도 아이나, 파스에담프톨등이 있는 사실, 스트렙토마이신에 의한 과민성 쇼크사는 매우 드물어 백만주사당 1회, 환자수는 68,000명에 1명(0.0015%)정도로 발생하며 페니실린의 경우와는 달리 스트렙토마이신은 사전피부반응시험으로 과민성여부를 미리 알아낼 수 없으므로 피부반응실험결과 음성이든 양성이든 쇼크가 일어나지 않는다는 보장이 없어 현재로는 스트렙토마이신에 대한 과민성 유무를 미리 알아내는 사전 검사방법이 없고, 스트렙토마이신에 의한 과민성 쇼크는 즉시형 과민반응으로서 대개 수분내지 1시간내에 증상이 나타나게 되며, 그 과민성 쇼크의 치료는 일반적으로 기도확보, 심장맛사지 및 혈압조절을 하고 에피네프린(Epinephrine)의 시주 수액공급 및 필요에 따라 부신피질홀몬제의 투여등의 응급조치를 하여야 하는 사실, 원고 1은 망 소외 3의 처, 원고 2는 그딸, 원고 3은 그 장남으로 호주상속인, 원고 4는 그 어머니들인 사실을 인정할 수 있고 위 인정사실에 반하는 갑 제4호증(진술서)의 기재, 증인 소외 1의 다른 일부증언은 믿지 아니하며 달리 반증이 없다.

According to the facts of recognition, Leptospirma is very rare, but there is no intention to identify the patient's overceptic nature in advance. Therefore, the patients' overceptic reaction test for the patients is meaningful.

Therefore, in light of the current general medical level, Nonparty 2, a public health clinic, who is obliged to display a ppirirosis, without being seen to be shocked in advance, should take first-aid measures such as identifying whether the deceased has a career of a drug shock, preparing an Epirical shock, etc. to be used at the shock, and to ensure that the deceased 3 is obliged to take first-aid measures, if he or she observe the pirical shock for one hour within a part of the time when the shock can occur after the injection, and if there are other drugs that can be replaced with it, he or she should take first-aid measures to ensure that the deceased's or his family members have the obligation to take first-aid measures, such as giving a warning to whether there is a career of a drug shock, and preparing a pirical shock, etc. to be used at the shock.

만약 위 (명칭 생략)면 보건진료소에 위의 제반조치를 취할만한 인원, 장비 및 약품등을 보유하고 있지 못한 경우에는 스트렙토마이신을 주사하지 말고 위와 같은 처치시설을 갖춘 병원으로 가도록 위 망인에게 권유하여야 하며, 망인이 이에 불응하고 주사를 원한다면 위의 처치시설을 갗춘 국공립병원에 후송시켜 거기서 주사를 하게 하였어야 할 것이다.

Nevertheless, it is important to believe that Nonparty 2 suffered from a voice reaction as a result of an indemnite reaction test without any meaningful meaning, and without prior preparatory measures for the prevention of spirine shocks before, and neglect the above deceased’s duty of care after giving them an indemnite treatment, and neglecting the duty of care after giving them an indemnite observation and shock, and neglecting the above deceased’s death is gross negligence. Since Leptirospirma is included in the national tuberculosis management system in the standard measure, it cannot be said that there is no negligence on the part of the perpetrator who gives them any indemnine treatment, and there is no influence on the part of the proprietor who gives them in light of the risk.

Therefore, the defendant Gun has a duty to compensate all damages suffered by the plaintiffs in relation to their status as seen earlier, by causing the death of the deceased non-party 3 due to the above illegal act committed by the non-party 2, who is a public official belonging thereto, to perform his duties.

2. Scope of damages.

A. The lost income of the deceased non-party 3

If Gap evidence Nos. 1-1 (No. 2) and evidence No. 2 (resident registration record card), and evidence No. 7 (O.S.) without dispute over the establishment thereof, and evidence Nos. 8-1 and 2 (O.S. Investigation Report No. 3) and all purport of oral argument are gathered, the deceased non-party 3 is a healthy male who remains under 31 years of age and 10 years of age at the time of the accident of this case, and the average life expectancy is 40 years of age, and the average wage for the adult male who works for the general daily work in rural communities around May 1984 at the time of the accident of this case can be recognized as being 9,089, respectively, and there is no other counter-proof evidence, and on the other hand, it is apparent that the living cost of the deceased may be operated until he completes 55 years of age, and there is no dispute as to the living cost of the deceased between the parties concerned.

According to the above facts, 151,483 won per month (i.e., 9,089 x 2/3 and less than the won, hereinafter the same shall apply) calculated by deducting the cost of living from the monthly income that can be earned each month by engaging in the daily work in general rural communities between January (289) of 24 years and the end of 55 years of age after the accident occurred due to the above accident, the deceased non-party 3 suffered from the loss that prevents the acquisition of the provisional income by deducting the cost of living from the monthly income (i.e., 9,089 x 2/3)

However, since the Plaintiffs sought payment of the entire amount of damages as at the time of the accident, it is clear that the computation of the present value is 28,692,546 won (=151,483 x 189.410) when calculating the present value at the time of the accident under the door-to-door calculation method that deducts the statutory intermediate interest at a rate of 5/12 percent per month.

B. The deceased non-party 3's consolation money

It is obvious in light of the empirical rule that the deceased non-party 3 suffered from extreme mental pain until he died from shock shocks in the accident of this case. As such, the defendant is obligated to suffer from the above mental pains of the deceased, and as a result of the occurrence of the accident of this case, if the situation, such as the age, status, occupation, and the degree of property of the deceased as mentioned in the argument of this case is invaded, it is reasonable to determine consolation money to be paid to the above deceased at KRW 1,40,000.

(c) Inheritance relationship;

The sum of the damage claims by the deceased non-party 3 due to the tort of this case is 30,092,546 (=one actual income 28,692,546 + 1,40,000) was jointly inherited by the plaintiff 1,284,704 won (=30,092,546 x 3/8), and the plaintiff 2 succeeded to the amount of 7,523,136 won (=30,092,546 x 3/8). If the damages are divided according to the above plaintiffs' statutory inheritance ratio, the plaintiff 1 and 3 jointly succeeded to the amount of 11,284,704 won (=30,092,546 x 3/8).

D. The plaintiffs' consolation money

Since it is clear in light of the empirical rule that the deceased non-party 3 died of the accident of this case and received a huge mental suffering as seen earlier, the defendant is obligated to suffer the above mental suffering of the plaintiffs. In light of all circumstances such as the plaintiffs' age, status status, occupation, property level, etc. as shown in the argument of this case, it is reasonable to determine consolation money to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff 1 for 400,000 won per each of the plaintiffs 2, 3, and 4.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 1 12,184,704 won (the inheritance amount of 11,284,704 + the consolation money of 900,000), 7,923,136 won (the inheritance amount of 7,523,136 + 400,000), 11,684,704 won (the inheritance amount of 11,284,704 + the consolation money of 400,000), and 400,000 won from May 17, 1984, which was the date of the accident of this case, to the plaintiff 2, and damages for delay with a rate of 5 percent per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act. Accordingly, the plaintiffs' claims are justified within the scope of recognition of the above plaintiffs, and are dismissed by applying the proviso of Article 98 of the Civil Procedure Act to the remainder of the litigation costs.

Judges Kang Jin (Presiding Judge) Kim Hong-nam