205Na17784 Compensation (as the case may be)

1. Plaintiff 1

2. Plaintiff 2

3. Plaintiff 3

4. Plaintiff 4

5. Plaintiffs 5

1. Defendant 1;

2. Defendant 2;

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2004Gadan25595 Decided July 21, 2005

February 23, 2006

March 2, 2006

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

The Defendants shall pay to each of the Plaintiffs 1 1 10,00 won with 5% interest per annum from February 3, 2004 to March 2, 2006, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment. The Defendants shall pay to each of the Plaintiffs 1 6,528,515 won, 2, 3, 4, and 5 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. The plaintiffs' remaining appeals against the defendants are all dismissed.

3. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs, and the remainder is assessed against the defendants, respectively.

4. The portion ordering payment under paragraph (1) may be provisionally executed.

The judgment of the court of first instance is revoked. The Defendants’ respective plaintiffs 1 are gold 27, 835, 798 won, 2, 3, and Won

The first instance court of this case from February 3, 2004 for each of the above amounts of KRW 1,00,000 and each of the above amounts to Plaintiffs 4 and 5

5% per annum and 20% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment of each judgment

payment of the same amount shall be made.

1. Basic facts

This Court's reasoning is as stated in "1. Basic facts for the judgment of the court of first instance". Thus, this Court's reasoning is accepted in accordance with Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

As the cause of the claim in this case, the plaintiffs asserted that the defendant foundation operating the above medical care center and the defendant 2, who was the entrusted doctor of the above medical care center, suffered injury to the plaintiff 1 due to the mistake that caused the plaintiff 1 to neglect the management and medical care of the plaintiff 1 by failing to properly treat his or her wife or by failing to properly treat his or her wife, etc., and that the plaintiff 1 suffered from extreme mental distress to the plaintiff 1, and due to the above joint tort committed by the defendants, the plaintiff 1 suffered 17,835,798 won for medical expenses and medical consumption expenses, etc. and 10,000 won for consolation money, 2, 3, 400 won for consolation money, 1,000 won for consolation money, and 1,000 won for consolation money, respectively, and the defendants are liable for damages to each of the plaintiffs.

B. (Ground of Liability) According to the reasoning of the judgment, Plaintiff 1 was admitted as to whether the Defendants 1 was frightened by assault and frightening the Plaintiff 1, Plaintiff 4, 6, 9, 10, Eul evidence 10-2, Plaintiff 5-1 to 7, while entering the Defendant’s medical care on January 10, 204 and being provided medical treatment on the part of the Plaintiff 1’s face, Defendant 1 was not considered to have been frightened by the Defendant’s 1’s frighten and kneeas, and Defendant 1 was not frightened by the Defendant’s frighten and frighten on the face of the Plaintiff’s frighten and frighten, and the Plaintiff’s frighten and kneeas were found to have been on the left side of the Plaintiff.

(C) Therefore, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit without examining the remainder of the issue.

(2) In full view of whether the Defendants neglected the medical care and management of Plaintiff 1 (A), Gap evidence Nos. 4, 11, Eul evidence Nos. 2, 5, 9 through 9, Eul evidence No. 10-2, 4, 5, 9 through 12, part of Eul evidence No. 10-6, Eul witness of the first instance trial, and Eul evidence No. 10, Eul evidence No. 10-6, and the whole purport of the pleadings, the following facts can be acknowledged, and evidence No. 10-6, part of Eul evidence No. 10-6, witness of the first instance trial, and witness No. 10-B are not believed.

[The plaintiffs defense that Eul evidence Nos. 6 through 9 was altered. Thus, according to the evidence Nos. 7 and 8, even though the evidence No. 7 (Nursing) stated that the plaintiff 1 was faced with her head on Jan. 17, 2004, the records of the same date as the evidence No. 8 (the place of night duty) can be acknowledged without such statement. However, the above facts alone are hard to recognize the above alteration and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. 1) The defendant medical care center is a so-called medical care center for the elderly who mainly operated for the elderly with symptoms such as dementia, wind, and urology.

2) On January 10, 2004, Plaintiff 2 and Plaintiff 5 entered Plaintiff 1 to Defendant Medical Care Center and received medical care. At the time of admission, Plaintiff 1 submitted to Defendant Medical Care Center a self-check on November 3, 2003, stating that Plaintiff 1 had symptoms, such as dementia, memory reduction, depression, depression, evaculation, and WIG disorder.

3) The Defendant medical care center had Plaintiff 1 enter the Plaintiff 1’s 15 medical care room for 5-person 1, and assigned “A” and “B” to have the said Plaintiff attend the said medical care room with the other medical care personnel. As a result, the above care personnel confirmed that Plaintiff 1’s body condition was confirmed by taking the clothes of Plaintiff 1 on the day of admission, and Plaintiff 1 was in a state of not good condition, such as Plaintiff 1 was in a bath on the upper side of the said body and being in a hole of both arms and kne, but at the time there was no face, side gate, buckbucks, and kne on the upper side and right side of both arms and kne.

4) On January 11, 2004, "A nurse of the Defendant Medical Center" around 30: (a) around 30, the following day after admission: (b) around 125: 56mHg; (c) the blood pressure of the Plaintiff 1 was 125/36mHg; (d) 70mHg; and (e) the high blood per annum (FBS) 245 g/ dl; (b) the above nurse sent the phone to the Plaintiff 1’s guardian; (c) confirmed whether the Plaintiff 1 was suffering from urology; and (d) the Defendant 2 instructed the Plaintiff 1 to administer 30 m insulinin ins; and (e) the Plaintiff 2 instructed the Plaintiff 50mg/ dl insulin insuline if the suld blood is cut, he did not give instructions to the Defendant 2, who was the commissioned doctor.

5) The Defendant’s medical care center, at night, had two night workers from 30 to 07:0 the next day, and had knee knee knee knee knee knee knee knee knee knee knee knee knee knee knee knee knee knee knee knee knee knee knee knee knee knee knee knee knee knee knee knee knee knee knee knee knee knee knee.

6) According to the individual observation log, nursing log, and night duty log prepared by the employee’s worker on duty and the nursing staff, etc. to manage the actual conditions of medical care, the Plaintiff 1 suffered the following injuries during the period of medical care in the Defendant’s Medical Care Center, and the Defendant’s nurse “A” was treated as a face and knee’s wife, such as kneing in knee’s wife or providing emergency treatment to knee’s wife from January 27, 200 to knee’s face.

(1) Making a hole on the side of head purification by going beyond the night on January 17, 2004.

(2) The 27. The knee-free wife shall remain.

(3) Making a hole by facing a house on the 28th of the same month.

(4) The 29th day of the same month, knee-free wife.

(5) On the 30th of the same month, the walking-centered may face more than a magazine.

(6) On the 31st of the same month, all sides face with inside and outside shall remain.

(7) February 1, 201 of the same year: Bridges and ridges are bridges.

7) According to the medical certificate (No. 4) written by the medical doctor of the hospital “B”, Defendant 2 was presumed to have already occurred from February 8, 2004, which was 2 weeks prior to the above hospital, around January 25, 2004. Since around November 25, 2003, Defendant 2 entered into a commission agreement with the Defendant’s medical care center with a monthly remuneration of KRW 1.5 million. Defendant 2 visited at 3 p.m. a week and visited at 3 p.m. on 44 p.m. per week, and provided diagnosis and treatment to the care center by telephone or other means, and provided diagnosis and treatment for the care center during the period of Plaintiff 1’s medical care.

1. On the 30th of the same month as the 16th of the same month, the Defendant visited the Defendant’s Medical Center to provide medical treatment (on January 23, 2004, it appears that there was no medical treatment since the annual leave of absence on the day following the sound history). According to the Defendant’s report on the medical treatment submitted to the Defendant’s Medical Center, the Defendant 2 provided only the Plaintiff 1 with blood pressure and urology on January 16, 2004 and on the 30th of the same month, and did not provide any treatment on the credit suffered by the Plaintiff 1.

9) Meanwhile, “A, the president of the Defendant Medical Center,” after Plaintiff 1 was hospitalized due to the instant shopping mall, told Plaintiff 3 and Plaintiff 5 around February 21, 2004, “B” at the coffee shop in the hospital to the effect that she would make every effort to make compensation for this.

(B) In full view of the following circumstances based on the above facts, the nurses and nursing workers, who are employees of the Defendant Care Center, were negligent in neglecting the Plaintiff 1’s medical care, management and request for medical treatment, and Defendant 2’s negligence in neglecting the Plaintiff 1’s medical care, and due to such negligence, the Plaintiff 1 suffered the instant wife or caused the said negligence to be expanded.

I would like to raise an appeal.

① Defendant medical care center was well aware of such circumstances as Plaintiff 1’s entrance on the day or following day, and Defendant 1’s health care for the care of Defendant 1’s nursing workers, etc. were not well locked, or that there was no injury to Plaintiff 1’s health care for the treatment of the first and following day, and that the first or following day of the entrance of the Plaintiff 1’s medical care for the treatment of the first and following day, and that the first or following day of the treatment of the first or following day’s healthcare for the treatment of the first or following day, the first or following day’s treatment of the first or following day’s healthcare for the first time, and that the first or following day’s treatment of the first or following day’s healthcare for the first time’s treatment of the first or following day’s healthcare for the first time, and that the first or following day’s treatment of the second or following day’s healthcare for the first time’s treatment of the first or following day’s healthcare for the first time, and thus, the first or following medical care for the first time’s health care.

(C) If so, the defendant medical care center is the employer of the nurse and nurse who is his employee, and the defendant 2 is the joint tortfeasor, and the defendant 1 is responsible for compensating the plaintiffs for the damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the plaintiff 1's injury in this case.

C. (1) Meanwhile, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the above evidence, the plaintiff 2 submitted only the diagnosis of the plaintiff 1 on November 3, 2003, and entered into an admission contract with the plaintiff 1 to the defendant medical care center at the time of admission. Since the plaintiff 1 submitted a written opinion on January 9, 2004 to the effect that the plaintiff 1 suffered from urology and livering symptoms, it can not be considered in determining whether the defendant medical care center entered into the contract of this case with the plaintiff 2 and the content of the contract.

(2) In addition, in light of the facts acknowledged above, the following circumstances, namely, ① the Plaintiff 1 suffers from urine and liveration, and the Plaintiff 1 suffers from urine and liveration, are easily added.

② Although it was difficult for Plaintiff 1 to take proper measures such as providing meals, medical care, and other necessary daily lives, even if it was difficult for Plaintiff 1 to take proper measures, due to dementia and depression, it was difficult for Plaintiff 1 to continuously manage and supervise Plaintiff 1 as a medical care center for 24 hours. ③ Defendant medical care center is not a specialized elderly hospital or a convalescent hospital that provides medical treatment to a inmate, but a specialized sanatorium that provides the elderly with severe illnesses, such as dementia, paralysis, etc., with convenience for their daily lives, and receives all expenses from the inmate. ④ Plaintiff 1 has paid attention necessary for managing Plaintiff 1, and even if the Defendants took proper measures such as treating the elderly before the above aggravation, it is difficult to conclude that Plaintiff 1 did not have the wife of this case or could have been treated easily. In light of the above, limiting the scope of the Defendants’ liability is in line with the principle of fair and equitable sharing of damages and the principle of comparative negligence and its scope of the Defendants’ liability.

3. Scope of damages.

(a) The amount of KRW 11,057,030 for the portion recognized as the medical expenses (1) ( = 675,630 for the patient himself/herself from among the hospital medical expenses = 'A' + 138,80 for the patient himself/herself from among the hospital medical expenses + 10,092,52, and 520 for the patient from among the patient medical expenses for the same hospital + 150,000 for the purchase of medical supplies, Inc. for the medical supplies for the Han-si corporation

[Evidence Nos. 7, 8-1, 2, and 13-2 of evidence Nos. 8-1, 13-2, and the whole purport of the pleading (2) is not recognized, the part of the plaintiff 1, other than the above hospital's medical expenses, also claims that the plaintiff 1 suffered losses of 17,835, 798 won including the insurer's share of the medical expenses for the above hospital's fee and the costs incurred in purchasing the products, such as mats and air trings, ruppers, and ruptures. However, with regard to the fact that the above plaintiff actually paid the medical expenses equivalent to the insurer's share, or that the purchase of the above products was made by the annual installments system of the right knee and the unit of the telegraph, there is no reason to believe that it exceeds the above recognition limit, and there is no reason to support it otherwise.

B. Fruits offset (1) The defendants' liability ratio: 50% (see the above 2.c. (2. 2. c. 2) (2): gold 5,528,515 won ( = 11,057, 030 wonx 0.5)

(c) The reasons for consolation money (1): The age, family relation, degree and result of the injury suffered by the plaintiff 1, status of the operation of the Defendant Medical Care Center, and other circumstances shown in the argument of this case (2): (a) The plaintiff 1: 1 million won (b) the amount of 2, 3, 4, and 5; 100,000 won each of them; and

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendants are obligated to pay damages for delay at a rate of 6,528,515 won to each of plaintiffs 1 + KRW 5,528,515 + KRW 1,000,000 + KRW 1,000,000 each of the above amounts to plaintiffs 2, 3, 4, and 5). Since the date of the bodily injury of plaintiffs 1, 100,000 won occurred after February 3, 2004 for which the plaintiffs claim against the defendants from February 3, 2004 to March 2, 2006, which is deemed reasonable for the defendants to dispute about the existence or scope of the obligation of performance of this case, 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act, and 20% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment, the plaintiffs' claims against the defendants against the defendants are dismissed, and all of the remaining claims against the defendants are without merit.

Judges Kim Jong-soo

Judge Choi Sung-soo

Correction of Judges