2017Da280968 Compensation (Definition)

1. A;

2. B

[Judgment of the court below]

Attorney Park Jong-hee, Justice Park Jong-hee, Justice Park Jong-hee, Justice Lee Jae-sik, Justice Kim Jong-sik, Justice Lee Jong-chul,

South Korean People's land, human nature, Gyeongjin, Omba, Omba, Omba, Anmba

C Hospital

Law Firm Seo-Gyeong, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Attorney Kim Jong-chul, Justice Kim Jong-sik, and Justice Park Jong-soo

Busan High Court (Chowon) Decision 2016Na21042 Decided October 26, 2017

July 24, 2019

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal by the plaintiffs are assessed against the plaintiffs, and the costs of appeal by the defendant are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Judgment on the plaintiffs' grounds of appeal

A. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court determined that the medical personnel of the Defendant hospital did not take any measures against D after the arrival of the emergency room and did not neglect more than ten minutes, and it is difficult to recognize that the medical personnel of the Defendant hospital did not have any negligence by finding it late in the engine due to the Defendant hospital’s failure to take any measures against D, or neglecting to observe closely the progress of DNA, etc., and it is insufficient to recognize that the medical personnel of the Defendant hospital did not have any negligence in selecting the method of medical treatment, etc., on the ground that the Defendant hospital did not have any negligence in selecting the method of medical treatment, etc.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the record, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on mitigation of burden of proof in damages caused by medical malpractice, etc.

B. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

For reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court recognized the medical personnel of the Defendant Hospital only the negligence of failing to administer the Nogurine according to the prescription, even though they had the duty of care to administer the Nogurine, which is the part of the instant medical personnel, in accordance with the doctor’s prescription, and limited the Defendant Hospital’s liability to 30% of the amount of damages for the fair burden of damages by taking into account all the circumstances on the premise of the aforementioned determination.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the record, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding limitation of liability, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical

2. Judgment on the Defendant’s grounds of appeal

A. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

Taking into account the circumstances indicated in its reasoning, the lower court, based on the doctor’s prescription, by the medical staff of the Defendant Hospital.

Although there was a duty of care to administer the Nourgic loan, as a proper dose and usage, D has not maintained the proper authenticity due to the negligence of failing to administer the Nourgic loan in accordance with the prescription, so that the pulmonary heart has broken out in the engine and caused the pulmonary heart damage to D, and eventually, D has confirmed the fact that the pulmonary heart was caused by the pulmonary cerebral d's cerebral d's cerebral d's pulmonary d's pulmonary pulmonary d's pulmonary d's pulmonary d's pulmonary d's pulmonary d's pulmonary d's pulmonary d's pulmonary d's pulmonary d' and the d's d's d's d'

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the record, the lower court did not err in its judgment by inconsistent reasoning, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

B. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

The court below calculated the lost income amount on the premise that D had the ability to work as a normal person and had an average life, and limited the amount of damages to be borne by the defendant to 30% of the above amount of damages, considering D's progress and progress of high blood pressure at the scopic scopic (apopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic sp

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the record, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the name of lease or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, thereby exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal by the plaintiffs are assessed against the plaintiffs, and the costs of appeal by the defendant are assessed against the defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Ki-taik

Justices Kim Jong-il

Justices Park Il-san

Jeju High Court Justice Kim Jong-soo