1. The Defendant’s KRW 6,100,029 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from March 22, 2013 to August 22, 2014.

1. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Plaintiff entered into a contract on the use of long-term care services with the Defendant and entrusted the Plaintiff’s mother C (hereinafter the Deceased) to the medical care center operated by the Defendant. As the Plaintiff’s violation of the Defendant’s protection and management duty, caused the Deceased’s death as it was found that he was unable to detect the deceased’s cardio-cerebral dyssis, etc. from time to time and caused the deceased’s death. As a result, the Defendant is liable to compensate for damages for the amount of KRW 6,229,130, 1850,000 for medical expenses of the Deceased, funeral expenses of KRW 4,116,100,000 for funeral expenses of KRW 12,195,230, and KRW 500,097,615 for consolation money of KRW 13,097,615 for the deceased’s heir who paid the deceased’s treatment expenses on behalf of the deceased.

2. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the descriptions of Gap 1 through 8, Eul 17, Eul 17, and Eul 1 and 2 (including each number), and the fact-finding results on the director of the Seoul Metropolitan Government Hospital Hospital, the deceased's acute chronological chronological chronological typosis and so on cannot be deemed to have occurred due to the deceased's violation of the duty of protection and management, but the deceased's above symptoms cannot be deemed to have been caused due to the deceased's aggravation of the above symptoms, and thus, the defendant is liable to compensate for the damage.

(1) On January 1, 2013, the Deceased’s appeal for the pain on a bridge appears to have continuously been lodged. The Defendant’s medical care center without direct diagnosis of the cause or symptoms appears to have been immediately subject to the obligation to the extent that the Deceased was able to undergo the diagnosis and at least to contact the Plaintiff, who is his guardian, and to be able to take appropriate measures. However, the Defendant’s medical care center, who was not capable of directly diagnosing the cause or symptoms, appears to have been delayed.