In a case where Gap, while receiving physical treatment from a hospital operated by a medical corporation Eul due to cryptic care due to cryptic care at a hospital operated by a medical corporation Eul such as cryptic care and her right upper part, suffered from cryp care due to cryposisic care performed voluntarily by a physical therapyr, she received a cryp care at a cryp care hospital and got a cut operation at the left part of the upper part of the hospital, and sought damages against Eul, the case holding that Eul was liable for damages on the ground that there was a breach of duty of care in the process of physical treatment, and limiting Gap's degree of contribution and negligence to 40% and 10%, respectively, and limited liability to 50%.

In a case where Gap, who received crypology and dypology surgery and dypology surgery, dypology surgery, was found to have violated the duty of care to take preventive measures to prevent the location of crypology and the right side gypology, and Gap, who received physicalpology treatment at the hospital operated by the medical corporation Eul due to crypology treatment, and suffered from crypology surgery at the hospital after the crypology treatment, and caused the crypology surgery at the hospital after the crypology treatment to the left side, and sought damages against Eul corporation, the case holding that Eul was liable for damages against Eul corporation on the ground that Gap violated the duty of care to take preventive measures to prevent the location of crypology without the doctor's consent, and that Gap did not actively cooperate with the crypology treatment and 10% degree of contribution and negligence.

Articles 750 and 751 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff (Law Firm Masung, Attorney Lee Jae-in, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Medical Corporations (Attorney Kim Sung-ju, Counsel for the medical corporation-appellant)

November 5, 2013

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 95,659,454 won with 5% interest per annum from February 23, 2011 to December 10, 2013, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. One-half of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 190,987,952 won with 20% interest per annum from the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

A. Status of the parties

On September 25, 2009, the Plaintiff: (a) received kidney and extracted surgery from urology; (b) received urology from urology; and (c) received vegetable surgery from around that time; and (d) applied ○○○○○○○○ (hereinafter “Defendant hospital”) operated by the Defendant on the ground that urine and the right upper part of urine and the right upper part, and the right lower part of urine.

B. Progress of treatment at the Defendant Hospital

1) On February 21, 2011, the Defendant hospital restricted the Plaintiff’s revolving and left-hand revolving movement, and confirmed the date and the opinion of escape from the compact drive No. 4-5 as a result of radiation examination, and conducted physical therapy until February 23, 2011 from the same date.

2) On February 23, 2011, the physical clinic of the Defendant Hospital provided the Plaintiff with light physical therapy, while providing the Plaintiff with light physical therapy, and the Plaintiff provided the outpatient treatment on both sides of the Plaintiff.

3) On February 25, 2011, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Defendant Hospital that the images were 2 days by treating both spouts, etc., and the Defendant Hospital confirmed that the Plaintiff suffered two degrees of images from the spouts, etc. on the same day, the Defendant Hospital conducted disinfection and spouting on the 26th of the same month and on the 28th of the same month.

4) On March 2, 2011, the Defendant hospital issued a written request for medical treatment to the Plaintiff and took all measures to the △△△ Hospital on the ground that the Plaintiff’s right edge, etc., was improved on the image side, such as the left side, and on the ground that the Plaintiff’s opinion of organization was verified.

(c) The progress of treatment and surgery at △△△ Hospital;

1) On March 4, 2011, the Plaintiff hospitalized at △△△△△ Hospital. The medical staff at △△△ Hospital provided anti-biological treatment to both the Plaintiff’s visual parts, including the Plaintiff’s visual parts, from around that time to March 6, 2011, and conducted as part of the prosecutor prior to the surgery against the Plaintiff’s withdrawal of the telegraph terminal, and the examination of cardio-high and chest cT was conducted.

2) On March 7, 2011, the medical personnel at △△△ Hospital diagnosed the Plaintiff’s images, etc. on both sides of the Plaintiff, etc., and thereafter, the medical personnel conducted a refluencing reflucing of the skin and the skin typosis that occurred after video damage, and thereafter conducted a reflucing of the skin and the skin typosis. On March 18, 2011, the medical personnel carried out an reflucing of the reflucing of the reflucing organization, and carried out a reflucing of both sides, etc.

3) On March 25, 2011, medical professionals at △△△ Hospital appeared to have symptoms to cover the hings, such as the Plaintiff’s left-hand side, and on April 2, 201, on April 11, 2011, in which the Plaintiff’s hings were off, the medical professionals carried out hings using a common eel (which are products used for a large amount of hings for creative treatment) on both sides of the Plaintiff’s hings.

4) On April 27, 2011, the medical professionals at △△△ Hospital removed creative skins that were collapsed by both sides, etc. of the Plaintiff. On the right edges, the medical professionals conducted emulculation and reconcing emulculation and reconcing emulculation with regard to the right edges. On the left edges, the medical professionals conducted emulculation and partial emulculation by using emulculation and rearculation and partless emulculation with regard to the right edges.

5) On May 2, 2011, the medical professionals at △△△ Hospital showed her typology around the part where the Plaintiff performed the revolving typology among the video parts of the Plaintiff, and on May 4, 2011, the medical professionals conducted typology and typology on May 16, 201.

6) On May 18, 201, the medical professionals at △△△ Hospital continued to do so in a way that the Plaintiff’s window shows the Plaintiff’s view of infection, and the amount of scopic to scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic

7) On May 20, 201, the Plaintiff was infected with VRE infection. Around May 27, 2011, the Plaintiff was recommended from the above hospital to receive treatment for isolation wards based on the above VRE infection, but the Plaintiff rejected it and discharged the Plaintiff.

8) On June 7, 2011, the Plaintiff re-hospitalized the △△△△ Hospital, and received a cutting operation on July 4, 2011 on the left-hand part of the lower-hand part of the hospital.

(d) Relevant medical knowledge;

1) Images refer to damage caused by heat and may be destroyed by its subordinate organizations as well as parts in severe cases. The stages of images are divided into 1,2, and 3 degrees. Among them, one minute image means a case in which pictures are generated only on the sphere, and there is no sphere, but only in which they are sphere, and two degrees of images are recovered without a reflect. The sphere two degrees of images are divided into sphere and sphere and sphere, and organizationally, the sphere images cause red, skin, and sphere and sphere sphere and sphere sphere sphere sphere sphere sphere sphere sphere sphere sphere sphere sphere sphere sphere sphere sphere sphere, and sphere sphere sphere sp.

2) Images in which the body surface 30% or above, and 10% or above, and 3 degrees of visual and pulmonary equipment were affected shall be hospitalized. In a case where the degree of image is light, it shall immediately ice with ice, etc., and the 2 degree of image capture in itself act as a natural protection preventing against spatitis, so they shall be spatched and protected. If there are too ties or severe pains, they shall be spatched so that they can spatched by being spatched by being spatched in the state of spatch. In the case of severe visual images, spatch spatch, as well as spatching with spatch material or spatched loss, and as a wide range of images, the treatment and spatching of the spatch and spatch spatch, as well as treatment and spatch therapy of telegraph.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 9 through 13 (including each number in the case of provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the result of the appraiser's medical record appraisal by non-party 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) A physical therapy at Defendant Hospital’s hospital did not receive a doctor’s instructions and investigated the Plaintiff’s salone’s salone, etc. at his own discretion. A patient, as the Plaintiff, who was an extracter and kidne transplant transplant recipient, was found to be negligent in properly adjusting the distance from return and the hours of use so as not to be exposed to images when treating the salone, and in spite of the Plaintiff’s duty of care that the Plaintiff should have given due care to check the treatment part or should have received directly at the site.

2) After confirming the Plaintiff’s image level, the medical professionals at Defendant Hospital did not perform their duty of care to immediately use a wide range of antibiotics against the Plaintiff, or to prevent dysings caused by urology by using all of them as medical institutions capable of specialized treatment, taking into account the fact that the Plaintiff had been using immunodeficiencys after having been granted kiddy or extracting surgery.

3) Ultimately, as a result of the Plaintiff’s breach of the above duty of care by the physical treatment physician and medical personnel of the Defendant hospital, the Defendant, as the employer of the above physical treatment physician and medical personnel, is obligated to pay the Plaintiff damages incurred therefrom, KRW 190,987,952 (i.e., daily loss income of KRW 127,175,399 + KRW 27,364,953 + KRW 27,847,60 + KRW 33,600 + KRW 33,600 + damages for delay.

B. Defendant’s assertion

1) The physical therapy performed by the physical therapy at the Defendant Hospital to the Plaintiff’s development, etc. is based on a device that has many available for home use and does not require special skills or risks. As such, the physical therapy physician may voluntarily coordinate and implement the treatment without the doctor’s instruction. The Defendant hospital’s medical personnel transferred the Plaintiff’s image to the superior hospital immediately after the Plaintiff’s opinion on titry system was presented on the left side, and the treatment or electric power resource treatment did not violate the duty of care.

2) The images generated by the Plaintiff’s left-hand edge are merely 2 degrees of images and need not conduct a cutting operation. However, the Plaintiff’s recovery was delayed due to the Plaintiff’s urine urine urine urine urine’s urine urine urine’s urine urine, and the Plaintiff’s urine urine urine and infection’s urine urine urine urine were aggravated, and the Plaintiff’s urine urine urine and infection occurred. As such, even if the Defendant’s liability for damages is recognized, the responsibility should be limited to up to 20%.

3. Determination as to liability for damages

A. Breach of duty of care in the course of physical therapy

In light of the aforementioned facts and arguments, the medical professionals at Defendant hospital prescribed physical therapy on February 23, 201 on the Plaintiff’s neck, and did not give instructions on treatment to the Plaintiff, but the physical therapy physician at Defendant hospital arbitrarily provided the Plaintiff’s salvine treatment on both sides, etc.; and (2) the Defendant alleged that the treatment of the salvine was performed on the ground that the salvine treatment fell short of the date of physical therapy, and thus, even if the salvine treatment was conducted as one of the medical treatments, it is necessary to conduct the salvine treatment according to the doctor’s instructions even if the salvine treatment was conducted, and that the salvine examination was conducted on the salvine part of the Plaintiff’s salvine, and that the salvine treatment could be excessive when the salvine treatment was conducted without any change in the distance between the Plaintiff’s salvine and the salvine treatment.

B. Violation of duty of care in the course of treatment of images

A physician has a duty of care to take the best measures required to prevent risks depending on the patient's specific symptoms or circumstances in light of the nature of the duties of managing the patient's life, body, and health, and such duty of care shall be determined on the basis of the level of medical practice performed in the clinical medicine field, such as medical institutions, at the time of the medical practice. The level of medical care refers to the so-called medical awareness generally known and recognized at the time of the medical practice, and thus, should be determined at a normative level in light of the environment and conditions of medical treatment, the peculiarity of the medical practice, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da13045, Oct. 28, 2005, etc.).

In light of the above legal principles, the medical personnel at Defendant Hospital confirmed the two sides, etc. of the Plaintiff on February 25, 201, as well as the following facts: (a) the Defendant Hospital’s medical personnel confirmed the two sides, etc. of the Plaintiff to be subject to hospitalized treatment; and (b) the Defendant Hospital observed six-day progress while performing basic visual treatment, such as disinfection and dring treatment, etc. for the prevention of infection; (c) although the Plaintiff’s right-hand edge, etc. were improved through the above treatment, the medical personnel at Defendant Hospital appeared to have a titry organization on March 2, 2011 as the Plaintiff’s left-hand edge, etc., and (d) on the same day, the medical personnel at Defendant Hospital was immediately a superior hospital to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, it is reasonable to deem that the above treatment by Defendant Hospital was conducted according to the Plaintiff’s medical condition, the level of medical care at Defendant Hospital’s hospital, and the level of medical practice conducted in the clinical medicine field at that time, and there is no evidence to deem that there was any negligence or negligence by delay in the medical personnel.

The plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

C. Limit of liability and liability

Therefore, the defendant, who is the employer of the above physical therapy, is liable to compensate the plaintiff for the damages caused thereby.

However, in full view of the aforementioned facts and the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff, upon receiving an dystrophy surgery and extraction surgery on September 4, 2009, had been conducted to use the dystrophying agents thereafter, delayed and aggravated video treatment. The Plaintiff’s use of dystrophyalopic urine as a result of blocking the supply of oxygen and nutrition materials on the left side due to the impairment of the horse blood circulation disorder caused by urgic urology, led to gystrophying. The Plaintiff refused to accept the recommendation of the quarantine room treatment on the face of V RE infection infection at the end of May 201, and rather did not actively cooperate in treatment such as discharge, and eventually, re-hospitalizeed the Plaintiff on July 4, 201, it is reasonable to recognize the Plaintiff’s liability for damages incurred by the Defendant to the Defendant on account of the Plaintiff’s 10% degree of damage incurred by the Defendant’s △△△△ Hospital’s negligence during the process.

4. Determination on the scope of damages

Under the following, the period of calculating the amount of damages shall be calculated on a monthly basis, but less than the won and less than the last month shall be discarded in calculating the amount of damages, and the current price shall be calculated at the time of the accident shall be in accordance with the door-to-door discount method that deducts the intermediary interest at the rate of 5/12 per month, and it shall be rejected that the parties' arguments are not separately explained.

(a) Actual income:

1) Facts of recognition

A) The Plaintiff’s gender, date of birth, date of occurrence, date of completion of operation: The same shall apply to the entry in the column of basic matters in the attached Form of damages calculation sheet.

(b) Occupation and income: Urban daily wage (the same shall apply to the entry in the lost income column in the attached Form of the damages calculation sheet);

(C) Ratio of labour capacity loss: 25.8% permanent disability, taking into account 14, cut-IV-2, degree of contribution 40 per cent of Mabrid’s assessment report;

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy, the result of physical appraisal by Nonparty 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2) Calculation: It shall be KRW 78,520,121 as stated in the separate sheet of damages calculation.

(b) Expenses for medical treatment and medicine;

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 8, 14, 16, and 20, the plaintiff paid KRW 27,364,953 (26,636,303 medical expenses of △△△△△△ Hospital + KRW 435,500 + drug expenses + KRW 293,150).

(c) Expenses for auxiliary equipment;

(a) Kind of auxiliary aids: Artificial arms and legs;

2) The time of purchase: The Defendant did not have any material that the Defendant spent on his/her medical capacity until the date of closing the argument in the instant case, and it is deemed that the Defendant was first purchased on November 6, 2013, which is

3) Termination period: Replacement by five-year unit until the termination of life of the plaintiff

(d) Unit price: 600,000 won;

5) Calculation: 2,617,740 won as listed in the following table:

A person shall be appointed.

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy, the result of physical appraisal by Nonparty 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Limitation on liability

1) The Defendant’s ratio of liability: 50% (see, e.g., Paragraph (c) of the above 3.3., however, with respect to lost income, 40% of the contribution recognized earlier in the recognition of the ratio of loss of labor ability was already reflected, and thus, the remaining Plaintiff’s negligence should be offset additionally by ten percent.

(ii)Calculation;

85,659,454 won = (78,520,121 won in lost daily income x 90%) + [27,364,953 won in treatment expenses + 2,617,740 won in support expenses) + 50%)

(e) consolation money;

1) Grounds: The reasons why the Plaintiff suffered disability and the result thereof, the degree of negligence of the medical staff of the Defendant Hospital, and the Plaintiff’s age and occupation, as shown in the instant argument.

(ii) Amount determined: 10,000,000 won;

F. Sub-decision

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay at each rate of KRW 95,659,454 (=85,659,454 + KRW 10,00,000) and 20% per annum under the Civil Act from February 23, 2011 to December 10, 2013, which is the date the Defendant rendered this decision, to dispute about the existence and scope of the obligation.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment] Calculation Table of Damages: Omitted

Judges Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Justice)