logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2019.04.11 2018나66425
손해배상(기)
Text

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiffs.

purport, purport, and.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant, in relation to the parties, directly operates the said hospital as the head of the Fvalescent Hospital located in Ansan (hereinafter “instant convalescent Hospital”); Nonparty G (hereinafter “the deceased”) was hospitalized in the instant hospital on August 7, 2017; and the Plaintiffs are siblings who inherited the deceased’s claim for consolation money at the instant hospital.

B. On August 7, 2017, the Deceased’s Deceased was hospitalized in the instant hospital, and was laid off on the rooftop, which was opened to the instant hospital, and was then taken a chair, who was directly possessed by the Deceased, and died on a rooftop rail.

(hereinafter “instant death incident”). / [Grounds for recognition] without dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 1 and 9, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiffs' assertion and judgment

A. On March 2017, the Plaintiffs asserted that the deceased was hospitalized in the instant convalescent around July of the same year because there was an attempt to commit suicide due to depression during the period of depression, and that the health condition of the deceased was considerably good due to verteb, etc., and thus, the Defendant confirmed that the deceased was taking advantage of depression at the time of the hospitalization procedure, and that the deceased was actually taking advantage of depression. As such, even though the deceased had a duty to prevent suicide or self-harm through appropriate treatment and observation, the death of this case was caused by neglecting to allow the deceased to enter the rooftop through an open entrance without monitoring or controlling their movement, instead of appropriate treatment for the deceased, even though the deceased was obligated to prevent suicide or self-harm.

Therefore, the defendant is a consolation money for the plaintiffs who suffered direct mental damage at the same time as the deceased's heir's death due to default of obligation and tort liability, and at the same time, 21,66,666 won each (=50,000,000 consolation money unique to the deceased x 1/3 of inheritance shares x 5,00,000 consolation money for each of the plaintiffs' own inheritance shares).

arrow