(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.10.24 2017가합554909

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.10.24 2017가합554909

손해배상(의)

Text

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff A is a university student who was in the first grade of the Dental Health University clinicalology and the first grade at the time of 2016 and participated in the collective blood donation of the Defendant’s Jeonbuk Blood Center (hereinafter “Defendant Blood Center”), and the Plaintiff B and C are the parents of the Plaintiff, and the Defendant is an incorporated association organized pursuant to the Organization of the Korean Red Cross Act, which has a blood center for each of its affiliated areas and its blood management headquarters and each region, and the Defendant Blood Center is the blood center in the former North Korean region.

B. On April 27, 2016, Plaintiff A participated in a group blood donation activity conducted by Defendant A blood center. Medical personnel affiliated with Defendant A carried out blood donation in a way that he/she sets up an injection fat for blood donation on the left-hand side of Plaintiff A and collects the blood of patients (hereinafter “instant blood donation”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiffs' assertion that the defendant suffered damage to the plaintiff A due to the plaintiff's violation of the duty to explain or negligence in blood collection as follows. Thus, the plaintiff A and the plaintiff B and C, who are their parents, are liable to compensate for the damage suffered by the plaintiff A and the plaintiff B and C.

In blood collection, Defendant Blood Banks neglected to perform the blood donation of this case by inserting the sony on the left-hand side of Plaintiff A, even though there was a duty of care to insert the neute gy so as not to cause any damage to the neute due to the flasing, towing, pressure, etc., and thereby caused damage to Plaintiff A to the left-hand side.

B. Defendant blood banks in violation of the duty of explanation did not explain to Plaintiff A that the increase in injection would cause damage to the relevant blood donation of this case.

3. Determination

(a) Whether damage to the left-hand price due to the negligence in blood collection was caused by Gap's 3 to 10, 15 to 15.

참조조문

-대한적십자사 조직법

유사 판례

-인천지방법원 2016.06.02 2015나8285

-대구지방법원 2019.12.04 2019나306930

-대구지방법원김천지원 2019.04.04 2018가단32940

-대법원 2015. 2. 26. 선고 2013다27442 판결

-광주지방법원 2018.07.03 2017가단17738