2016 Gohap 51893 Compensation (as stated)

1. Stambed ○;

Incheon Southern-gu Gyeongbuk-ro

2. Bryebry;

The Incheon Gyeyang-gu funeral;

3. Anchorum;

[In the case of Pakistan-si Eup]

Plaintiffs (Law Firm Cheongho, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Attorneys Nam-hun, Hak, Oun, Song River, Kim Dong-ok, and Kim Sin

1. Medical Center:

Representative Director of Medical Service ○○

2. Kim Jong-chul

Defendants’ Address Incheon Dong-gu

[Defendant-Appellant] Plaintiff 1

Attorney Doh-hee, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

April 26, 2016

May 31, 2016

1. The Defendants jointly pay 159, 443, 296 won to Plaintiff Gab○○○, Plaintiff Balbb, Plaintiff Balb, and Gabnbus, with 3,00,000 won per annum from January 14, 2014 to May 31, 2016, and 15% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. All of the plaintiffs' remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, 2/3 of the costs of lawsuit are borne by the Plaintiffs, and the remainder by the Defendants.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The Defendants jointly do so to the Plaintiff Park ○○, respectively, about 448, 340, 013 won, Plaintiff Park Habb, and Madle Madle

10,000,000 won and each of the above amounts shall be from January 14, 2014 to the service date of a duplicate of the complaint of this case.

of 5% per annum, 20% per annum from the following day to September 30, 2015, and the day of full payment from the next day to the day of full payment.

up to 15% interest per annum shall be paid.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff Park Jong-○ is a patient who received medical treatment and windbrate-type surgery from the Defendant Medical Center (hereinafter “Defendant Hospital”), as seen below, and the Plaintiff Park Jong-○ is a child of the Plaintiff Park Poe-○, who is the Plaintiff Park Il-young.

2) Defendant Kim Jong-tae is a medical specialist employed and working in the Defendant Hospital.

B. The Defendant Hospital’s treatment and its progress 1) Plaintiff Park ○ was hospitalized in and discharged from the Defendant Hospital on December 20, 2013, following the discharge of the Plaintiff Park ○, due to the crypter’s crypt, the radioactive raying on both sides, and the symptoms of chest’s frying.

2) During the Round Test (MRI), Plaintiff Park Jong-○ was treated as preserved in crypology 12, 1,000 pressure frame, 4-5, 5, 1,000, and 3, after being diagnosed as spine 1,000, 200, Plaintiff Park Jong-○ was treated as crypology clothes, wearing auxiliary devices, etc., on the same day from January 14, 2014 to 09:05, the plebal 12, which used cement cement from Defendant Kim Jong-hwan, and part of the cryptyptym type (Kyptyphtytymmmmmmmmm) was discharged into the instant cement 12,000,000,0000,0000,0000,000,000 won.

4) On January 14, 2014, after the instant procedure was conducted, Plaintiff Park ○ filed an appeal for pains, etc. from around 59 to around 12: (a) as a result of the 3D CT examination conducted on January 16, 2016, Plaintiff Park Jong-○ filed an appeal for the pains, etc.; and (b) as a result of the examination on the 11st left-hand-hand-down of the plehioned computer type (3DT), the observation of the plehion of the plehion in the upper left-hand end of the plehion, the plehion of the plehion, the central head-down pressure, the plehion-down pressure, the amhion 2-3 pressure conjection, the verthion of the Do, and the verth 4-5 vertebrost sected s

5) The plaintiff Park ○ is currently in the state of disability of the lack of high level of incomplete paralysis on both permanent and permanent grounds (hereinafter referred to as "the instant disability").

C. Graduated pressure of relevant medical knowledge refers to the state in which spine verte is dried, vertebral, or vertebral with severe shock compared to normals. In particular, in the event of severe diveropical symptoms such as women and senior citizens after closed games, it would be difficult to provide meals because there is no external shockion, and further, it is deemed that the eromatic pressure diverization has increased by the death rate by inducing mergers such as lung disease, heart disease, and fire extinguishing disease. Currently, in case of spine pressure, it is difficult to put the vertebra, which is a sort of vertebra, into the bones, and to put the cement vertebral with vertebral with vertebral ebral ebral ebral ebral ebral ebral ebral ebral ebral ebral ebral ebral ebral ebral ebral ebral ebral.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap's statements in Gap's 1 to 5 (including branch numbers, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

The plaintiff Park Jong-○, as seen below, caused the instant disability by violating the duty of care of the medical staff of the defendant Kim Il-young and the defendant hospital. Accordingly, in accordance with the tort liability under Article 750 of the Civil Act, the defendant Kim Il-young is liable for damages suffered by the plaintiff Park Il-○, pursuant to the employer’s responsibility under Article 756 of the Civil Act, and the plaintiff Park Jong-young is liable to compensate for mental damages suffered by the

1) Violation of the duty of care in the procedure

Although Defendant Kim Jong-tae needs to pay attention to prevent cement from being leaked while conducting the instant treatment as a medical specialist in the external area, Defendant Kim Jong-tae caused the instant interference by having cement leaked by conducting the instant treatment.

2) Violation of the duty of care in the course of transitional observation

Although Plaintiff Park Jong-○ appealed from the day immediately after the instant procedure, the medical professionals at Defendant Hospital including Defendant Kim Young-chul did not properly observe Plaintiff Park Jong-young’s symptoms due to neological abnormal symptoms. After the instant procedure, Plaintiff Park Jong-○ did not fulfill the duty of care necessary for the process observation, such as the implementation of the cT photographing on January 16, 2014, and caused the instant disability. 3) violation of the duty of explanation

The medical personnel of the Defendant Hospital explained to the Plaintiff Park ○○ in relation to the instant medical treatment that it is possible and effective to discharge the Plaintiff on the day or late, and that it is good to discharge the instant medical treatment, and did not explain the other risks and side effects of the instant medical treatment.

B. As to the defendants' negligence, 1) as to the defendants' breach of duty of care in the procedure

In full view of the aforementioned evidence and the fact that ○○○○ University Hospital Head 1 was entrusted with the appraisal of medical records, and the following circumstances were revealed from each fact-finding on the head of this Court’s Hospital Head 1, namely, ① the operation of this case was conducted in real time; ② the occurrence of cement outflow in the course of the operation; ② the occurrence of cement outflow in the course of the operation is not clearly confirmed; ③ cement outflow in the course of the instant operation is likely to occur without medical malpractice; and ③ there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise. Accordingly, according to the above evidence, Plaintiff 1 was found to have been found to have been negligent in the instant operation on the ground that Plaintiff 2 was administered at the time of 00,000, 2000, 2000, and 300,0000,000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,000,000,000).

B) The following circumstances revealed from the above basic facts, recognized facts, and evidence revealed earlier, namely, ① cement leakage may occur due to side effects of the instant treatment; ② whether cement leakage can be accurately confirmed through X-ray, etc.; ③ if the symptoms of cement outflow clearly show symptoms not to be cement outflow, cement removal should be done as soon as possible; ④ if there are many old and multiple symptoms, side effects arising from the instant treatment can be seen as likely to occur if it were to be performed immediately after 00,000 after the instant treatment; ⑤ If it was conducted after 0,000,000 after 10,0000,0000 after 30,000,0000, 300,0000, and more than the Plaintiff’s 1,000, 6,000,000 after 3,000,000,000,000 after 3,000,000,000,000,000.

According to the purport of Eul evidence No. 1 and the whole arguments, the medical professionals at defendant hospital explained to plaintiff Park ○ that the methods and expected examples of the instant procedure may result in infections, negoal damage, and negoy, etc. due to risks that may follow the instant procedure, and that the medical professionals at defendant hospital received a vow that the plaintiff Park ○○ made such explanation from the plaintiff Park ○. Thus, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

C. As to the causal relationship, the Defendants asserted that there is no proximate causal relationship between cement outflow under the instant treatment and the instant disability in light of the following: (a) even if cement was partially leaked to the Republic of Korea; and (b) in light of the fact that it does not result in drinking to all patients.

2) The following circumstances revealed from the aforementioned facts, the above basic facts, the recognition facts, and the aforementioned evidence; ① cement outflow to vertec or necos may cause neutism or neutism pressure; ② Plaintiff Gamboo confirmed that cement outflow occurred into vertecos after the procedure of this case; ③ Plaintiff Gamboo did not have symptoms of crymology, such as urine urine and urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine; ④ Plaintiff Gamboo○○○ after the procedure of this case, there were no symptoms of urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine.

D. Sub-determination

Therefore, the defendants neglected to observe the symptoms of the side effects of the procedure that may arise to the plaintiff Park ○○, and caused the symptoms suspected of side effects to the plaintiff Park ○○, even though they had a duty of care to diagnose and properly treat them, and the above negligence of the defendants contributed to the plaintiff Park ○○'s instant obstacles. Therefore, the defendants are liable to compensate the plaintiffs for the damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the above medical malpractice.

E. Limitation of liability

However, the following circumstances revealed from the aforementioned evidence, i.e., (i) Plaintiff Park○ had already shown symptoms due to psychotropic damage, such as severe pain, etc. from the time of his hospitalization at the Defendant Hospital; (ii) Plaintiff Park○ was 68 years old at the time of the instant treatment; and (iii) it appears that Plaintiff Park○’s personal child was a considerable cause for Plaintiff Park○’s occurrence of the instant disability to Plaintiff Park Jong-○; and (iv) the medical staff at Defendant Hospital confirmed the symptoms of the instant disorder, including the fact that Plaintiff Park Jong-○ made efforts to safeguard the Plaintiff Park○, and made efforts to share the damages fairly and appropriately; and (v) it is limited by 30% to the extent of the Defendants’ responsibility by taking into account other factors, such as the equitable sharing of other damages, the ideology of the damage compensation system, and the guiding principle.

3. Scope of damages.

A. Basic facts as to the plaintiff Park Jong-young

1) Gender and date of birth: The number of male and the age of birth (living 2 October 29, 1945): 12.79 years until October 28, 2026, as at January 14, 2014 (at the time of the instant procedure, February 68 and 16):

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, the result of the commission to the director of the non-satisfye University to the director of the non-satisfye University

B. The Plaintiff’s property damage 1) nursing expenses

According to the results of the above physical appraisal commission and the purport of the whole oral argument, Plaintiff Park ○○ is recognized as having high level of incomplete finishing expenses on both permanent parties, and thereby, it is necessary to take a day-to-day nursing (12 hours) by an adult one. Since it appears difficult for Plaintiff Park ○○ to smoothly carry out activities necessary to lead a daily life and a human basic life from the day of the instant procedure until the day of the expiration of the life-to-day nursing, it is recognized that the need for nursing has been recognized, and in light of the degree of the instant disability, treatment progress, current status, etc., it is reasonable to view that the nursing has been conducted from the day of the instant procedure from the day of the instant procedure to the day of the completion of the life-to-day nursing from the day of the completion of the life-to-date nursing

From January 14, 2014, the date of the instant procedure to October 28, 2026, from January 14, 2014, to October 28, 2026, the date of the life expectancy of 12 hours per day, and when calculating the current price at the time of the accident, it would be deemed that 497,062,894 won (hereinafter referred to as the “cost”) as indicated below is deemed to have been disbursed for 12 hours per day.

2) According to the result of the above physical examination of assistive devices and the purport of the entire pleadings, it is anticipated that Plaintiff Park Jong-○ will require a unit price of 480,00,000 won for moving during the life expectancy, and wheel chairs for five years of life expectancys. If the expense for assistive devices anticipated to be required from April 27, 2016, after the date of the closing of argument in this case, until October 28, 2026, is calculated as of October 28, 2026, the date of the closing of argument in this case, then the expense for assistive devices is KRW 1,081,427 as indicated in the following table (inasmuch as there is no assertion and proof on the fact that Plaintiff Park Jong-○ used the above assistive devices by the date of the closing of argument in this case, it shall be deemed that the first purchase was made after the date of the closing of argument in this case, and the purchase cost in the future shall

3) After limiting the liability of Plaintiff Park Jong-○’s property damage totaling KRW 498,144,321 ( = 497,062,894 Won + 1,081,427 Won) and then limiting the liability, Plaintiff Park Jong-○’s property damage totaling KRW 149,443,296 ( = 498,144,321 Won x 30%)

C. Reasons for taking into account the Plaintiffs’ consolation money 1): All the circumstances revealed in the arguments in the instant case, including the developments leading to the instant case, the details and degree of the Defendants’ negligence, the parts and degree of the harm caused to the future, the reasons for limiting liability as seen earlier, and the relationship between the Plaintiffs.

2) The amount recognized as the Plaintiff’s GabO: 10,000,000 won or more for Plaintiff’s Gabling Bal, Walkn Walkn: 3,00,000 won or more for each of the following reasons:

D. Sub-determination

Therefore, the Defendants are jointly obligated to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from January 14, 2014, which is the date of the instant judgment, to May 31, 2016, to the effect that it is reasonable for the Defendants to dispute about the existence or scope of the obligation to perform, as to the amount of KRW 159,443,296, Plaintiff Park Jong-○○, and the amount of KRW 3,00,000, and each of the above amounts, from January 14, 2014, to the date of the instant judgment, to the date of full payment.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, each claim of the plaintiffs is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and each claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Hong-chan

Judges Jeong-chul

Judges Park Jong-ro