2016 Ghana 317616 Damage (as such)

1. A;

2. B

3. C

Medical Corporations D

October 24, 2017

December 12, 2017

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs 15,00,000 won with 5% interest per annum from May 17, 2016 to December 12, 2017, and 15% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

2. Each of the plaintiffs' remaining claims is dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, 1/2 shall be borne by the Plaintiffs, and the remainder by the Defendant.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs 30 million won with 15% interest per annum from the day after the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiffs are children of the deceased E (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”), and the Defendant is a legal entity that operates G Hospital located in the Busan Suwon-gu F (hereinafter referred to as “the instant hospital”). The Deceased and H are patients hospitalized in the instant hospital and received blood administration and drug treatment, etc. due to the diagnosis of dystrophism, etc.

B. From July 15, 2011, the Deceased was hospitalized in the instant hospital, and was hospitalized in the hospital No. 254 from May 2015 to H. From the hospital’s hospital’s hospital’s hospital’s hospital’s hospital’s hospital’s hospital’s hospital’s hospital’s clinic. From May 15, 2015, H performed the treatment at the hospital’s hospital’s hospital’s hospital’s hospital’s hospital’s hospital’s hospital’s hospital’s clinic. From May 14, 2015, H performed drinking alcohol and returned to the hospital’s hospital’s hospital’s hospital’s clinic’s clinic’s clinic’s clinic’s clinic’s clinic’s clinic’s clinic’s clinic’s clinic’s clinic’s clinic’s clinic’s clinic’s clinic’s clinic’s clinic’s clinic’s clinic’s clinic’s clinic’s clinic’s clinic’s clinic’s clinic’s clinic’s clinic’s clinic’s clinic’s clinic’s clinic’s clinic’s clinic’s clinic’s clinic’s clinic’s clinic, etc.

D. On May 14, 2015, the Deceased complained of two copies around 03:30 on the same day, and at around 07:20 on the same day, the Deceased complained of symptoms that he was fluened and fluored on the bridge. At around 13:33 on the same day, the Deceased complained of symptoms that there was no fluoring on the 14:33 on the same day, and that the fluor was fluored and fluored in the sick room. The time was the same as the time was the Plaintiff C, a guardian, and the Plaintiff C was the same as the body of the Deceased. At that time, at the time, the Deceased viewed that the fluor of the instant hospital had no consciousness at the time of conversation with the medical team of this case, the medical team of this case was in charge of measures to stabilize the Deceased’s invasion.

E. At around 16:45 on May 15, 2015, the Deceased showed symptoms, such as a downs, food, and garrising, and the medical personnel of the instant hospital inspected CT (computer single-story photographing) on the brain side of the Deceased, and as a result, the medical personnel of the instant hospital observed the opinion of hump low-cut typosis in the upper half of the upper half of the body.

F. Around 17:05 on May 15, 2015, the medical personnel of the instant hospital decided to transfer the deceased to a superior medical institution. On the same day, the medical personnel of the instant hospital transferred the deceased to a shipping-bag hospital on the same day.

G. The Deceased was hospitalized in the East Asian University Hospital via the Shipping Bag Hospital and the I Hospital. However, on June 4, 2015, the Deceased died on the ground of damage of the head, such as hump and salivum transfusion, around 16:29, and his/her heir was his/her child.

H. H was indicted for causing bodily injury to the Deceased as seen above by the Busan District Court Branch Branch 2015Rahap166, which was the crime of causing bodily injury to the Deceased. On December 18, 2015, the said court convicted the Deceased of all the facts charged, and sentenced H to a four-year imprisonment, and the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

The medical personnel of the instant hospital violated the duty to prevent the instant accident, such as failing to take measures to discharge the patient, even though the hospitalized patient was drunk, and neglecting the duty to prevent the accident. After the occurrence of the instant accident, the medical personnel of the instant hospital put the time of treatment in violation of the duty of care to provide appropriate medical treatment even though there was any abnormal symptoms on the deceased, and accordingly, the deceased died.

In doing so, the defendant is obligated to pay 30,000,000 won for damages to the plaintiffs respectively (=10,000,000 won for inheritance (=30,000 won for consolation money of the deceased x 1/3) + 20,000,00 won for consolation money).

B. Occurrence of damages liability

1) In cases where a patient is hospitalized in a hospital and received treatment, the hospital is obligated not only to treat the patient, but also to provide accommodation for the patient, and to provide care, protection, etc., and thus, the hospital is obligated to protect the patient in accordance with the principle of good faith to devise appropriate measures necessary for the care, protection, etc. of the patient (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Da63275, Apr. 11, 2003). In light of the above hospital’s comprehensive duty of care, the hospital is obligated to protect the patient in accordance with the principle of good faith to prevent further accidents, such as preventing the patient from leaving the hospital without permission or drinking alcohol, and the patient’s return to the hospital after drinking back to the hospital. In this case, the hospital is obliged to protect the patient by preventing additional accidents, such as removing the patient from being hospitalized, extinguishing the patient, and isolation the patient.

Around 00:00 on May 14, 2015, when the deceased returned to the sick room 254 of the instant hospital and was asked by the nurse, etc. of the instant hospital. Around 00:30 on the same day, H used again the deceased who was in the sick room 254 on the same day and inflicted injury on the deceased. As seen earlier, the medical personnel of the instant hospital did not take measures to prevent additional accidents by moving H to another sick room after the first assault against the deceased, and the Defendant recommended the deceased to move to another sick room but refused this. However, even if the Defendant’s assertion was asserted, considering the fact that the Defendant recommended the deceased to move to the sick room at the time, it is difficult to view that the medical personnel of the instant hospital violated the duty to protect the deceased by taking account of the following facts and the purport of the entire arguments, and thus, failed to take measures to prevent additional accidents.

2) On May 14, 2015, H applied the instant accident to the Deceased on or around 00:30, because it was not necessary to treat the Deceased, and there were minor symptoms, such as 07:20 on or around May 14, 2015, she complained of symptoms that she was seated with walking on a bridge and that her walking is difficult on or around 13:30 on the same day. On the same day, she showed symptoms that she was unlikely to sit on, around 14:30 on or around 14:30 on May 14, 2015, she considered that there was no doubt that there was no meatal meaty for the deceased, and that there was a lack of awareness of meatological meat, and that there was no possibility that the deceased might have been meatal meatic meatic meatic meatic meatic meatic meatus.

3) Therefore, as an operator of the instant hospital, the Defendant, who is the employer of the instant hospital, is obligated to compensate the Plaintiffs for the damages suffered by the Deceased and the Plaintiffs due to the foregoing negligence. The scope of compensation for damages.

1) Consolation money

Considering the various circumstances revealed in the arguments of this case, such as the deceased’s age, health status, family relationship, and the history and result of the accident of this case, it is reasonable to determine consolation money of the deceased in KRW 30,000,000, and consolation money of the plaintiffs in KRW 5,000, respectively.

(ii) inheritance relations;

The plaintiffs: 10,000,000 won each (i.e., consolation money of the deceased 30,000,000 x inheritance shares 1/3)

Plaintiffs: 15,000,000 won each (i.e., inheritance amount of KRW 10,000,000 + solatium of KRW 5,000,000)

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiffs damages for delay at each rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act and 15% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, from May 17, 2016, the following day after the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case for which the Plaintiffs seek as to each of the above amounts, to the Defendant from May 17, 2016 to December 12, 2017, which is deemed reasonable for the Defendant to dispute about the existence or scope of the obligation to perform.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims are justified within the scope of the above recognition, and each of them is accepted, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Cho Jin-man