In a case where: (a) Party A was hospitalized at the hospital after the medical personnel’s negligence at the hospital A was in a state of plant life; (b) Party A filed a second lawsuit seeking compensation for additional damages arising from continuing life after the life period anticipated at the time of the first claim for damages due to the foregoing medical malpractice; and (c) Party B filed a claim for medical expenses against Party A, etc. for the payment of medical expenses, the case holding that Party A cannot be deemed to have received the medical expenses incurred after a specific point of time from the hospital B or to have waived the relevant claim; and (c) Party B’s medical treatment act is merely compensating for the damages incurred by Party A, and Party B cannot seek medical expenses against Party A, etc.

Articles 390, 393, 681, 686, and 763 of the Civil Act; Article 216 of the Civil Procedure Act

Yannam University Hospital (Law Firm New Daily, Attorneys Southern-si et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Defendant 1 and one other (Law Firm Sejong, Attorneys Kim Young-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Supreme Court Decision 2017Da288122 Decided April 26, 2018

Daejeon District Court Decision 2018Na105406 Decided July 4, 2018

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. A. The lower court rejected the Plaintiff’s instant claim against the Defendants on the following grounds.

(1) around May 198, Defendant 1 was in a state of vegetable disease due to the negligence of the medical personnel belonging to the Plaintiff, and is receiving hospitalization treatment at the hospital operated by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “Plaintiff hospital”). Defendant 2 guaranteed Defendant 1’s obligation to pay medical expenses to the Plaintiff.

(2) Defendant 1 filed a lawsuit seeking compensation for additional damages arising from the continued existence of the medical malpractice anticipated at the time of the first lawsuit for damages (hereinafter “the second lawsuit”). Although the Defendant could file a claim for medical expenses, etc. anticipated to be incurred from January 1, 2013 in the second lawsuit, he/she did not file such claim. Even if the said Defendant’s claim for a separate lawsuit contradicts the res judicata effect of the final and conclusive judgment of the second lawsuit and is not allowed under the Civil Procedure Act, the pertinent claim is not extinguished under the substantive law. In addition, the aforementioned Defendant did not appear to have received actual reimbursement from the Plaintiff or renounced the pertinent claim.

(3) As long as Defendant 1 continued to be hospitalized at the Plaintiff hospital without any specific situation change until December 31, 2014 following the medical accident, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff’s act of treating the Plaintiff to be aimed at treating and preventing the aggravation of the human form caused by the medical accident. Such treatment is merely compensating for Defendant 1’s damage caused by the medical accident, and thus, the Plaintiff cannot seek payment of the medical expenses from the Defendants.

B. The lower court’s determination is justifiable in accordance with the purport of the Supreme Court’s judgment remanded, and it did not err in its judgment.

2. The Plaintiff’s appeal is without merit, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Dong-won (Presiding Justice)