2013 Gohap4029 Damage (Definition)

1. A;

2. B

3. C

[Defendant-Appellant] Defendant 1 and 2 others

d. School juristic persons D.

Law Firm LLC (LLC), Attorney Kim Jong-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellant)

April 22, 2015

May 29, 2015

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff A 256, 792, 319, 5,00, 000, and 20% interest per annum from December 12, 201 to May 29, 2015, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the date of complete payment.

2. The plaintiffs' remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the litigation costs, 30% is borne by the Plaintiffs, and the remainder is borne by the Defendant, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The defendant set to the plaintiff A 349, 974, 987, the plaintiff B, and C respectively for KRW 7,50,000 and each of the above money.

From December 12, 2011 to the date of service of a copy of "written application for modification of the purpose and cause of the claim", 5% per annum;

The amount of money shall be paid at 20% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. Status of the parties

The defendant is a legal entity that operates a hospital, and the plaintiff A is a person who has received converging and melting in the defendant hospital, and the plaintiff B and C are children of the plaintiff.

B. On September 201, Plaintiff A received treatment, such as the back of the instant surgery and the fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluor.

2) On December 11, 201, Plaintiff A hospitalized in the Defendant Hospital for an operation. At the time, there was no special error in the fluence, sense, and luminous function of the land until the time. 3) The medical personnel of the Defendant Hospital performed “peaching and expeaching and turgical convergence” (hereinafter “the instant operation”) between Plaintiff A on December 12, 201, with respect to Plaintiff A on December 12, 201 (hereinafter “peaching and turgical convergence”).

4) However, since the completion of the instant operation, Plaintiff A was in mind of low fluority compared to the upper end of the instant operation, and the medical personnel of Defendant Hospital was in charge of a search operation to directly open and confirm whether there is a problem on the part of the surgery on the same day, and removed a small amount of blood transfusion and re-fluoring them after blood transfusion and washing, but the status of Plaintiff A was not protected. However, Plaintiff A was partially improved on December 31, 201, compared to the right side of the instant operation on December 23, 2011.

(c) Progress and present state after the transfer;

From January 31, 2012 to April 25, 2012, Plaintiff A was hospitalized in △△△ Rehabilitation Hospital; from April 25 to July 25, 2012 to △△△ Rehabilitation Hospital; from July 25, 201 to 29, and from July 25, 7. 25 to 29, Plaintiff A was hospitalized in △△ Hospital, and was receiving rehabilitation treatment; however, at present, Plaintiff shows symptoms, such as damage to the number of incomplete water, spathy, and bladrosis disorder.

D. Relevant medical knowledge 1) The instant surgery, i.e., 4-5 square meters and electric convergence surgery, implemented for Plaintiff A, was performed for the purpose of easing psychological pressure and ensuring the stability of the public. The method of surgery is to eliminate the lower part of the 4 square meters of the body and the upper part of the 5 square meters of the 5 square meters after the cutting and stuffing, remove the disc (porizontal signboard) from the 4 square meters and the 5 square meters of the body, and then fix the 4 square meters and the 5 square meters of the 5 square meters, and to combine them with the blood, the 5 square meters after washing.

2) In the event of the blood species or the blood species, after the implementation of the drilling, the MRI or CT prosecutor will assist in the diagnosis, and when the surrounding organization blshes, it may also be confirmed by X-ray inspection.

As for the species of strody, it is necessary to provide strody injection or strophy seizure, and as for the parts of the neighboring organization, most of them are observed only by strody injection, and their directions and periods are prescribed based on the patient's condition, the surgery opinion, and video medical opinion.

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. In order to impose liability for damages on a person who performed a medical act in the instant medical malpractice and causation 1), the existence of causation between the violation of the duty of care in the instant medical act, the occurrence of damages and the violation of the duty of care and the occurrence of damages should be presumed. However, in light of the fact that medical practice requires highly specialized knowledge in the instant medical act, only a doctor can be aware of the process in addition to the fact that the patient or his family members can be aware of a part of the case, and the medical method to achieve the outcome of medical treatment depends on the doctor’s discretion, and it is extremely difficult to prove that the direct cause of damage was due to medical negligence in the instant medical act and the causal relationship between the patient’s breach of the duty of care in the instant medical act and the occurrence of damages. Furthermore, it is difficult to prove that there is no possibility for the patient to have performed the surgery in the instant case’s clinical surgery beyond other medical acts such as diagnosis, medication, and nursing, and there is no possibility that there was any special circumstance other than the Plaintiff’s 20th diagnosis on the part of the instant medical malpractice surgery.

3) Furthermore, the following circumstances revealed by evidence, etc. listed in the above 2) can be determined by the medical personnel of the Defendant Hospital, namely, ① after the Plaintiff’s Mafy, without the diagnosis of MRI or CT, the medical personnel of the Defendant Hospital did not find the cause of Mafying in addition to the removal of blood species generally observed after the operation. ② In the event that blood species or mafys were generated after the operation of Mafying, the medical personnel of the Defendant Hospital would be helpful for the medical examination of the Plaintiff and need to receive Mafying treatment or seizure of Mafys, despite the fact that the Plaintiff was unable to perform his duty of care due to 11 days before and after the operation of the instant medical personnel, the medical personnel of the Defendant Hospital appears to have failed to perform the precise image examination of the Plaintiff’s Mafying medical personnel or the Plaintiff’s Mafying medical personnel at the time of the treatment of the Plaintiff’s Mafying medical personnel due to the improvement of the Plaintiff’s medical condition or Mafying treatment.

B. Determination on the assertion of violation of the duty to explain

The plaintiffs asserted that the medical personnel of the defendant hospital did not explain the methods and side effects of the operation of this case to the plaintiff A and his guardian. However, considering the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence No. 1, the medical personnel of the defendant hospital stated that the medical personnel of the defendant hospital did not explain to the plaintiff A about the purpose and effect of the operation of this case prior to the operation of this case, the purpose and method of operation, the surgery, the methods of operation, and the merger certificate that may arise from the operation of this case, and the fact that the medical personnel of the defendant hospital explained to the plaintiff A that he could suffer from stimulation, infection, recurrence, and stimulsion, math, and pathic disorder in the event of damage to the stimul

C. Limitation on liability

In light of the following circumstances revealed based on the facts admitted as above and evidence, namely, given that certain degree of course of towing and pressure on the post-signation, it is inevitable to limit the Defendant’s liability for damages to 70% for the fair and reasonable allocation of damages, taking into account the following factors: (a) the risk inherent in the surgery itself is likely to cause neutism in the surgery; (b) the Plaintiff’s state of king, the degree of difficulty in surgery, and the specificity of the surgery.

3. Scope of liability for damages

In the event of the accident of this case, the basis of calculation, expenses, calculation, and the amount of the plaintiffs' property, mental damages shall be calculated as follows (Provided, That pursuant to the discount method that deducts interim interest at the rate of 5/12 percent per month, it shall be calculated at the present price at the time of the accident of this case, and the convenience of calculation and the amount less than 1/12 per month shall be discarded). It shall be rejected that the parties' claims are not separately explained.

(a) Actual income:

1) Personal information

- Date of birth and gender: Birth on November 4, 1960, and male (which remains between 51 and 1 months at the time of the accident);

- Occupation: Freight class driver;

- Name of a flag: 4452. [The name of a flag of Plaintiff A shall be reduced by 69-79% compared to the general public, so the name of a flag of Plaintiff A shall be multiplied by 74%, which is the average value of the name of a flag of 28.98, in accordance with the name of a flag under the name of a flag of this Court, and the name of a flag of 28.98];

- The maximum working age and the number of working days: 22 days per month until November 3, 2020, respectively) on December 12, 2011, when hospitalized treatment was conducted from December 29, 201 to December 29, 2012: 10% after December 30, 2012: 64.8% (the calculation of double disability rate is referred to as "the calculation of the amount of damages" in the annexed sheet of damages)

(1) Damage to incomplete water, math of mast: 56% [2 parts of Mabrid Mabrid, brain, and 1X of eths]

- B - 3

② The calculation of 20% [items I - A - 2] Financial assessment of damage and disease items of Mabrotonic urology and capability to operate: 20%: 201, 2011, 2012 “Report on Actual Conditions of Employment by Type of Employment” is at least 10 years: 176, 812, 876 (see “actual income” column of the attached Table for calculation of damages): 25, 434, 842 : From December 12, 2011 to January 7, 2015; 25: 3: non-permanent treatment expenses from the date of closing argument to the date of closing argument 7: 4: non-permanent treatment expenses from the date of closing argument 5: 1.5 billion won to the date of closing argument 1.5 billion won; 2.5 billion won to the date of closing argument 1.5 billion won to the date of closing argument 1.5 billion won to the date of closing argument 2.5.

(d) The defendant's ratio of liability: 211, 792, 319 won [the amount of KRW 302, 560, 456 [the amount of KRW 176, 812, 876 + The amount of KRW 84, 751, and 800 + Non-urinary and future treatment expenses + KRW 15,560, 938 + the amount of KRW 25,434,842} x 70%];

E. Reasons for taking account of consolation money 1): The background and result of the instant medical accident, the amount determined by the medical staff of the Defendant Hospital, and the age and degree of disability of the Plaintiff A, etc. as shown in the argument of the instant case

① Plaintiff A: 45,00,000 won

② Plaintiff B and C: each of 5,000,000 won

F. Sub-decision

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 256, 792, 319 ( = KRW 211, 792, 319 + 45,00,000 + 5,000,000 each of the above money to Plaintiff B, and C, and to pay damages for delay calculated at each of the rates of 20% per annum under the Civil Act from December 12, 201, the date of the instant accident, to which it is deemed reasonable for the Defendant to dispute as to the existence or scope of the Defendant’s obligation, until May 29, 2015, which is the date of the instant judgment, and from the following day to the date of full payment, 5% per annum under the Civil Act until May 29, 2015, and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims shall be partially accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

The presiding judge shall have jurisdiction over e-mail

Maximum Gyeongscopes

Freeboard