logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2015.06.11 2014다232913
손해배상(의)
Text

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against Defendant Han Emergency Medical Center.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On January 13, 2012, the lower court, citing the reasoning of the first instance judgment, based on the grounds of appeal as to the existence of proximate causal relation, sent the deceased to the Gyeonggi-do Medical Center of Korea operated by the Defendant Gyeonggi-do Medical Center (hereinafter “Ugdo Medical Center”) on the part of her mother at around 12:20 on January 13, 2012 (hereinafter “the deceased”), and presented an opinion of an emergency blood transfusion fluorial fluorcing that requires emergency blood transfusion arbitration. As the hospital was not urgent to implement emergency blood transfusion arbitration, the medical personnel at the Suwon Hospital decided to transfer the deceased to the Gluri University Sluri University Medical Center of Korea with the treatment experience of the deceased, which concluded a contract with the Suwon Hospital to lease special ambulances (hereinafter “Defendant Emergency Medical Center”), and the deceased automatically transferred the deceased to the general first-aid hospital (hereinafter “the deceased at the time of arrival of the deceased’s first-aid treatment and emergency medical technicians at the time of the death of the deceased, such as the deceased’s first-aid hospital.

In addition, the lower court determined that the Defendant Emergency Medical Center was the operator of the instant ambulances, and was in violation of Article 48 of the Emergency Medical Service Act (hereinafter “Emergency Medical Service Act”) when the Defendant Emergency Medical Center transferred the deceased, who is an emergency patient of the instant ambulances without boarding an emergency medical technician, and determined that there was a proximate causal relation between such mistake and the death of the deceased.

Examining the record, the above recognition and judgment of the court below are just, and they violate logical and empirical rules.

arrow