2018Gaz. 24697 (in the case of principal suit) Damage, etc.

20191020 (Counterclaim medical expenses)

1. The family name;

2. The name of the mother;

Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)’s address Ulsan-gu

Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) Attorney Kim*

○ School Foundation ○ University

Chicago-si

Chief Director, Chief Director, and Second Director

Attorney Jeon-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant

Gambling doctor (a name)

The Nam-gu, Dong-gu, 00 University Hospital outside of 00 (affiliated to the University of 00)

2)

Attorney Jeon-soo*

September 24, 2020

November 19, 2020

1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff)’s 00 university and Defendant Park Jong-chul’s 10 university and the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)’s 32,50,000 each share of KRW 32,50,000 and each share of the above amounts shall be paid 5% per annum from January 17, 2018 to November 19, 2020, and 12% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment, respectively. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)’s remaining principal claim and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff)’s counterclaim claim are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the portion arising between the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Plaintiff)’s 00 university is assessed against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant), the remainder is assessed against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)’s ○ University, respectively, and the portion arising between the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Defendant’s intention to stay, and the remainder is assessed against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Defendant’s deceased’s intention, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The principal lawsuit: The defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter referred to as the "defendant") ○ University of the educational foundation and the defendant Park Jong-chul jointly pay to the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant; hereinafter referred to as the "Plaintiff") 270,781,440 won per annum for each of the above amounts and 5% per annum for each of the above amounts from January 17, 2018 to the delivery date of the complaint of this case and 15% per annum for each of the above amounts from the next day to the day of full payment.

Counterclaim: The plaintiffs pay 2,250,000 won each of the above amounts and 15% interest per annum from the day following the delivery of the counterclaim to the day of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. Status of the parties

On January 17, 2018, the deceased Liber (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) is the doctor of the Incheon National University Hospital (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant Hospital”) operated by the Defendant Educational Foundation ○○ University on January 17, 2018, from the Defendant Park Gambam doctor. A person who received a re-culption as a doubtful opinion is the deceased’s father, the Plaintiff’s father is the deceased’s mother, and the Plaintiff’s mother is the deceased’s mother.

(b) The deceased’s king history and the condition at the time of the establishment of the Defendant Hospital;

On December 13, 1993, the deceased was diagnosed as a workplace cancer at the Medical Center of the Nanchip University on June 16, 2017, and was under an anti-pactry treatment after being diagnosed as a workplace cancer by the Medical Center of the Nanchip University, and was under an anti-pactry treatment on December 20 of the same year. In order to undergo the treatment, the deceased was enrolled in the Defendant Hospital on December 28, 2017.

C. The first operation, etc. on the Deceased

1) On January 14, 2018, the Deceased was hospitalized in the Defendant Hospital, and the Defendant Hospital confirmed the suspicion of the 4-year patocium in the body of the Deceased through taking the clothes and intestation against the Deceased, and on January 17, 2018, the Deceased was conducted by the Defendant Hospital’s medical staff (or his house’s house’s house’s house’s house’s house’s house’s house’s house’s house’s house’s house’s first operation.

2) At the time of the first operation of this case, the first operation of this case is to eliminate a relatively large string in the mouth by an operation, and to treat duna cells in the dunac is to be treated by the dunac required method. At the time of the first operation of this case, dunac was carried out in dunacing in order to eliminate the dunacing volume of this part and remove the dunacing volume that can be observed on the surface of the dunac site of the Deceased at the time of the first operation of this case.

3) According to the records of the operation at the time, the duo cancer index of the deceased was 29.

D. The second operation, etc. on the Deceased

1) From January 22, 2018 after the first operation of the instant case, the Deceased leaked sapex through a double sapex. As a result of the pycT examination conducted on the same day, the medical personnel of the Defendant Hospital was in a state where the number of small quantities is observed in the mouth and the forest sapex was observed on the deemed day, and the sapz was suspected of the leakage of the body on the part of the surgery.

2) Accordingly, the medical professionals at the Defendant hospital suspended aviation cancer treatment in the mouth and continued to observe the progress of preservation (e.g., liquid therapy, antibiotics, etc.) but did not decrease the coagum. As a result of the pyCT examination conducted on January 31, 2018, approximately 10 x 3 cm in the sapex 10 cm between the mouth and the sapex 1 in the size of 3 cm, and thereafter, the coagum leakage continued without decrease in the coagum leakage.

3) On February 14, 2018, in order to verify the cause of the sap leakage by the deceased, the medical professionals of the Defendant Hospital conducted internal epidemal ephesion (hereinafter referred to as the “ERCP”) and self-moral sappins (hereinafter referred to as “MRCP”) 3 as a result of the examination of the MRCP, it was confirmed that the sappis were damaged and that the sappis were cut off. At the time, as a result of the MRCP inspection, the medical professionals of the Defendant Hospital recommended that the sappins should implement the sapex 4).

4) Medical personnel of the Defendant Hospital discharged the Deceased on March 9, 2018 - Factory Corresponding, and on February 21, 2018, the Deceased was released from the hospital. On February 27, 2018, the Deceased complained of an acute fluoric fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral flu

5) On March 5, 2018, the Deceased re-hospitalized to the emergency room of the Defendant Hospital because of the severe decline in telegraph, and subsequently, on March 9, 2018, the Deceased received the inter-factory colonization (hereinafter “the second surgery”) from the Defendant Hospital on March 9, 2018, and it was confirmed that the sapperson infection occurred due to the continuation of sapperson leakage as a result of the said surgery.

E. The third operation on the Deceased

1) After the instant secondary surgery, the Deceased continued coagum sap leakage as well as coagum sap leakage, which was conducted on March 19, 2018. As a result of the Trogateic surgery conducted on March 19.

2) On March 19, 2018, the Deceased got from the Defendant Hospital to undergo the operation recompactivity surgery (hereinafter referred to as “the Third Operation”). At the time of the operation, the body of sapex in the sapex was found in large quantities of sapex in the mouth, and the body of the sapex in the sapex was very urgent, and the sapex between the sapex and the factory were almost cut off, and some parts of the factory-factory cosix were cut down, and the remaining parts of the work were in progress.

3) After the implementation of the third operation of the instant case, the deceased’s state had been fluenced and constantly complained of the clothes, and the body size was fluenced with the sap of the sap of the sap through the sap of the sap of the sap.

4) On April 1, 2018, the Defendant hospital’s implementation of the Deceased’s care was found to have been leaked at the bottom where the inter-speaker and the factory’s implementation of the inter-speaker’s care.

F. Death of the Deceased

피고 병원은 이 사건 3차 수술 후 망인에 대한 치료를 계속하였으나 증세가 호전되지 아니하였고, 망인은 2018. 5. 9. 호스피스 상태로 ◎ ◎ 대학교병원으로 전원한 후 위 병원에서 호스피스 치료를 받던 중 2018. 5. 21. 사망하였는데, 사망진단서에 의하면 직접사인은 상세불명의 결장의 악성 신생물이었다.

(g) Relevant medical knowledge;

1) In general, when the head of workplace cancer turns out to the head of workplace cancer, the weapons will be 4 times. The head of workplace cancer is widely known and it is difficult to control the operation. As such, the head of workplace cancer is an adverse part of it. Only 5% of the patients with the head of the workplace who have the head of the workplace are at least five years of long-term existence, and a life is expected within one year in general.

2) An operation of five parts of the river mouth is implemented in accordance with the upper part of the river mouth, namely, an treatment method of 90 minutes explosing and distribution of anti-patum cancer listed in 42 -43 x in the river mouth. The operation of five parts of the river mouth, proposed by Schlage (Sugbac), will be implemented in accordance with Schlage’s divers, fluoral diverseing, fluoral diversing, fluoral diversing, fluoral diversing, fluoral diversing, fluoral diversing, fluoral diversing, fluoral divarcsing, fluoral dival divumcsing, fluoral divating, fluoral fluoral dembsing and eluoral drhetoral divum.

3) In carrying out blades (Calot) ginseng and wing reciting reciting recitings, it is possible to check the reciting structure and the reciting recitings to identify the exact location of the reciting and recitings, and to conduct operation with a chromatic structure, the upper side of which is the reciting winger, and the winger and wings (attached Form A) of the chromatic structure, the chromatic structure of which is the centering of the wing and wings (attached Form A). It is possible to conduct operation by checking the reciting structure in order to identify the accurate location of the reciting and wings.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 7, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply)

2. Determination on the main claim

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

(i) negligence in the course of operation and treatment;

A) Negligence of tactical weather at the time of the instant first operation

Defendant Park Jong-chul performed the instant first operation without confirming the autopsy structure of the operation, even though it is necessary to accurately verify the autopsy structure of the parts of the operation by checking the knife knife of the knife of the knife of the knife (the upper side of the knife of the knife, knife of the knife of the knife, the knife of the knife, and the knife of the knife).

B) Fruits on the part of the Defendant at the time of the first operation of the instant case

The Defendant Park Jong-chul did not perform a scopic scopic scopic scopic scopher to grasp the accurate scopic structure of the scopic scopic, which was the cause of cutting the scopic scopic scopic

C) After the first operation of the instant case, the juice sap, which delayed the diagnosis and distribution of the causes of the juice leakage, can make the juice sap with a strong solution including the juice, and if the juice sap extraction is accumulated and accumulated, it can lead to the jusium sap sap sap sap sap sap sap sap sap sap sap sap sap sap sap sap sap sap sap sap sap sap sap ste, so it should be promptly and clearly examined the causes of the jusium sap sap sap sap sap sap sap sap sap sap sap sap sap sap sap sap sap sap sap sap sap ste. In addition, the Defendant sap sap sap sap sap sap 18.

D) Negligence of delaying the instant secondary surgery

Although Defendant Park Jong-chul confirmed that he was cut off by the ECP and the MOCP inspection on February 14, 2018, Defendant Park Jong-chul performed the instant secondary surgery at around March 9, 2018, without leaving it alone, and around 25 days thereafter. Following the foregoing, due to the late surgery, Defendant Park Jong-chul got up to the sapasis due to the coarization of coara at the time of the instant secondary surgery, and thereafter, at the time of the instant third operation, the part of the body of the deceased was acquired as coara.

2) In the event that a delegating person’s request is made by a mandatory pursuant to Article 683 of the Civil Act, Defendant Park Jong-soo breached his duty to report the status of delegated affairs and report the end without delay when the delegation is terminated. Defendant Park Jong-soo violated his duty to report the completion of delegated affairs by failing to make any report or explanation as to the fact that the total fence of the deceased or his guardian was cut off, and that the cause of continuous coarization after the first operation of the instant case is when the total coarization was damaged.

3) As such, due to the negligence of the deceased’s doctor, the removal of sapa from the deceased was constantly aggravated, resulting in the death of the deceased as a result of the overall aggravation of the deceased’s telegraph.

4) Accordingly, the Defendant Educational Foundation 00 university, which is the employer of the Defendant Hospital’s medical staff, including the Defendant’s death and the Defendant’s deceased’s death, is jointly liable to compensate the Plaintiffs, who are the inheritor of the deceased, for the damage caused by the death of

B. Occurrence of liability for damages

1) Determination as to whether to recognize negligence

A) Determination as to the negligent assertion of alcohol weather at the time of the instant first operation

(1) In a case where a doctor’s medical practice becomes a tort in the course of a surgery, there should be causation between negligence in medical practice and damage. The burden of proof is borne by the patient. However, medical practice is not an expert in a field requiring high level of expertise, and it is extremely difficult to clarify whether there was a causal relationship between the doctor’s breach of duty of care and the damage. Thus, if indirect facts are proved that there is any other cause than medical negligence in the course of a surgery or operation, it is difficult to deem that there is any other cause than medical negligence in the event of symptoms causing serious injury to the patient after the surgery, such symptoms can be presumed to be based on medical negligence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da57787, May 9, 2012). Moreover, causal relationship in civil procedure is not a natural and medical causal relationship, but a social and legal perspective, and thus, recognition is based on evidence.

In light of the facts and empirical rules, it is recognized that a high probability exists to recognize that a fact has caused any consequence, and such certification should be sufficient to have convictions to the extent that ordinary persons would not be doubtful (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da7198, 77204, Apr. 13, 2012).

(2) Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances revealed based on the facts acknowledged earlier, it is reasonable to presume that, in the process of the instant first surgery against the deceased of the medical team at the Defendant Hospital, the deceased’s gymnasium cutting was caused by the instant first surgery, and that, by neglecting his duty of care to prevent damage to the gymnasium through the autopsy of the operation department in the instant first surgery process, the Defendant gymnasium caused damage to the gymnasium.

① Before the first operation of the instant case, the Deceased did not have any symptoms or opinions such as sap outflow and sap sapitis, etc. from the fifth day after the first operation of the instant case, and the sap leakage was confirmed, and the sap leakage was cut by the Deceased’s total sapcoke as a result of the ERCP and the MRCP inspection, and thereby, the sap leakage was confirmed.

② Inasmuch as wing recitings depends on whether wings, wings, and wings can be verified and preserved, it is the most important stage in wings to properly treat the blades in the operation. Therefore, it is necessary to check the accurate location and structure of wings and wings, namely, blades and blades, and to check the exact location and structure of the blades and wings, and it is possible to conduct the operation while checking the above structure. However, in the case of the deceased, an appraiser who prepared a reply to request the examination of medical records to the Director of Seoul Medical Center (hereinafter referred to as “Seoul Medical Center Appraisal”) by the Seoul Medical Center on January 17, 2018, without recording whether the medical professionals at the Defendant hospital’s hospital’s medical records on the operation record on each of the blades were confirmed at the time of the operation (Seoul Medical Center 6) and there is no other record to acknowledge the medical professionals at the time of the operation of the Defendant Hospital 1 at the time of the operation of this case.

③ The reason for the implementation of the gate climatic structure of the officer, etc. is to confirm the autopsy structure of the officer, etc., and to assist the climatic body in the prevention of damage to the officer’s climatic body by verifying the location and shape of the climatic body upon the climatic structure. This is carried out by the personal judgment of the climatic body. It is helpful for the patient who is suspected of damage to the climatic body in the course of the operation without being encouraged to be carried out by the patient with no damage during the operation, and for the patient who is suspected of damage to the climatic body during the operation, it is also helpful for the confirmation of damage to the climatic body and the choice of the appropriate method of treatment. Medical personnel of the Defendant hospital without confirming the climatic body as seen earlier in the first operation of the instant case. There was no fact that

④ The probability of causing damage to the guns of the deceased is less than 1% in the case of a patient with no capacity to do so, such as a ductal operation. However, it is difficult to confirm the autopsy structure of the deceased with severe damage to the hospital due to the previous operation. The reason is that it is difficult to confirm the autopsy structure of the hospital with severe damage to the hospital, and it is difficult to confirm the autopsy structure of the hospital with severe damage to the hospital. Even if the medical record appraisal reply to the director of the court (hereinafter referred to as "the appraisal hospital"), it is difficult to find that there was a wide range of damage to the hospital due to the ductal structure of the deceased after the first operation, and it is difficult to see that there was no possibility that the ductal damage would have been caused by the ductal damage to the hospital due to the ductal operation, and that there was no possibility that the ductal damage would have been caused by the ductal damage to the hospital due to the ductal structure of the deceased (the ductal damage).

6) In full view of these circumstances, it is reasonable to presume that the damage of the deceased’s general fences was caused by negligence by the medical personnel of the defendant hospital because the medical personnel of the defendant hospital did not properly verify the autopsy structure of the operation part during the first operation of the instant case, and caused by negligence cutting the general fences. This is reasonable in view of the view that the appraisal of the reduced hospital is “as a result of the appraisal of the reduced hospital, it is deemed that the fence damage was caused by the knife damage because the knife or the general fences were not verified clearly.”

7) As seen in the instant case, the medical team’s negligence is denied on the ground that the medical team’s specific negligence is insufficient to prove the medical team’s specific negligence or that the patient’s inflow in the mouth can act as an important person for the risks of damage to the general public, and that the medical team’s negligence was generated in the area controlled by the medical team and that the medical team’s specific act, which did not appear in the medical record, requires proof of the medical team’s negligence on the part of the patient, to prove the medical team’s excessive burden of proof on the part of the patient, in a case where it is difficult to find any inevitable circumstance that the medical team’s gross negligence cannot be damaged.

B) Determination as to the assertion of negligence, which failed to perform the wing and cooking at the time of the first operation of this case

(1) A physician has a duty of care to take the best measures required to prevent risks depending on specific symptoms or circumstances in light of the nature of the duties of managing human life, body, and health. However, such duty of care shall be determined on the basis of the level of medical practice performed in the clinical medicine field including a medical institution at the time of the medical practice (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da66328, Jul. 7, 2000). A doctor shall have a reasonable discretion to choose the methods of medical treatment deemed appropriate based on the patient’s situation, medical level at the time, and his/her own knowledge and experience. Unless it goes beyond a reasonable scope, one of them shall not be deemed to have been negligent in taking any other measures (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da23707, May 12, 1992).

(2) As seen earlier, the medical personnel at the Defendant Hospital did not perform the ducing operation at the time of the instant first operation, and the Seoul Medical Personnel Appraisal Board expressed the opinion that “When performing the ducing operation in a patient suspected of damage to the ducing operation, Da would be helpful to confirm the duc damage and to select the timely method of treatment,” and that “if the ducing medical personnel performed the ducing operation at the instant first operation, it would have reduced the possibility of duc damage if the ducing operation was conducted at the instant first operation,” it would be recognized that the opinion was presented.

However, in light of the following circumstances, which can be recognized by the overall purport of the evidence and arguments as seen earlier, i.e., the appraisal of a reduced-end hospital, when it was carried out by the personal judgment of the Do government, i.e., the Do government will be selected by the judgment of the Do government if it was not carried out at all times in the Do government or if it was carried out at all times in the Do government, i.e., the Do government will assist in preventing the damage of the Do government government by verifying the position and shape of the Do government government government when Do government was carried out. However, if it is difficult to confirm the Do government government's climatic structure because the Do government's climatic structure is serious, it is difficult to view that the evidence submitted by the plaintiffs is beyond the reasonable scope of the medical personnel of the defendant hospital in deciding whether to carry out the Do government climatic surgery at the time of the first operation with the deceased.

C) Determination as to the allegation of negligence delaying the diagnosis and distribution of the causes of coaguk leakage after the first operation of the instant case

In light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the medical personnel of the Defendant Hospital was negligent in failing to take appropriate measures to discover the cause of the sap abuse caused by damage to the sap incorporation that occurred to the Deceased on January 22, 2018, and in failing to take appropriate measures, even after ascertaining the cause of the sap outflow on February 14, 2018, after ascertaining the causes of the sap incorporation in the sap incorporation.

① From January 22, 2018, on the fifth day of the instant primary surgery, the Deceased confirmed the leakage of sapap from January 22, 2018, and on the same day, multiple quantities were observed within the dummy mouth of the dummy test, and the dummy was observed in the vicinity of the dummy and the dummy was suspected of the leakage of the body in the operation, and even thereafter, the dummy coap leakage continued. As a result of the dummy test on the dummy conducted on January 31, 2018, the dummy coap is found to have been stored in the dummy as it was limited to a specific part of the dummy.

(2) The appraisal of a reduced-end hospital may result from serious damage to the sap distribution if the sap distribution remains continuously observed and does not decrease in the sap distribution. In this case, the ERCP is necessary to accurately understand the ratio of the waste from the sap distribution and the degree of damage. The time when the ERCP enters into force is appropriate to make the sap distribution quickly (after the operation) when the sap distribution is high if the sap distribution is made after the operation. However, if the sap distribution is not high or the sap distribution is not well discharged through the sap distribution and the sap distribution is less than 1-2 weeks if the sap distribution is recovered at a low level, it is thought that the sap distribution continued to be maintained more than 1-2 weeks.

③ As seen earlier, as seen earlier, it appears that it was difficult to observe the sap leakage after the surgery only on the fifth day after the first operation of the instant case, if the sap leakage was conducted after the surgery, the sap leakage was confirmed and the sap leakage was suspected to have been conducted in the operation department, and even thereafter, the sap leakage was continued without the decrease. On January 31, 2018, 99 after the sap leakage was confirmed. Moreover, the sap extraction was found to the Deceased Hospital appraiser on January 31, 2018, when the sap extraction was conducted after the surgery, it appears that it was no longer necessary to find out the cause of the sapproke in the process of the sapproke and sapproke in the process of the operation, not at least at least at least at least at least at least at least at least at least at the 131st day after the 1st operation of the instant case.

④ Nevertheless, on February 14, 2018, after the expiration of 27 days after the first operation of the instant medical institution, medical professionals at Defendant Hospital implemented ERCP and MRCP (after the expiration of 23 days from January 22, 2018, for which the verification of coagum leakage was confirmed). As a result of the examination, it was difficult for the medical professionals to resolve by preservation, and it was difficult for them to be resolved by preservation, and it was a situation in which surgery was needed.

⑤ On the other hand, when it is confirmed from a sap extract from a fire engine, there is a possibility of causing additional mergers, such as dump and dumpitis, and thus, the sap extract found to the deceased as a result of the CT test on January 31, 2018 showed a high-amount opinion on fire-fighting formation. However, on February 14, 2018, the medical personnel of the Defendant hospital, who recommended the implementation of sapproke dumopic dumopic dumopic dums on the deceased on February 21, 2018, was released from the hospital on the part of the deceased, but the deceased complained of dumc dump and again implemented dump dump dump dump dump dump dump dump dump dump dump dump dump dump dump dum.

④ On January 31, 2018, the Seoul Medical Center appraiser expressed his/her opinion that when considering the fact that it is at a location where it would be possible to inserting an amount of excreta in the time of inserting the amount of excreta, if the amount of excreta inserted into the amount of excreta would have been likely to have been expected to have done a rapid clinical process if the amount of excreta inserted into the amount of excreta would have been expected to have been avoided, and that the amount of excreta, effective February 27, 2018, could have been delayed if the amount of excreta determined through the results of the ERCP and the MRCP, effective February 14, 2018.

D) Determination as to the assertion of negligence delaying the instant secondary surgery

In light of the above facts, it is difficult to view that the court's entrustment of medical records to the Seoul Medical Center director and the Seoul Medical Center director of the Seoul Medical Center, and the following circumstances, i.e., (e) the low-scale hospital appraiser did not immediately perform the operation on February 14, 2018, which was 25 days after the examination of the 25th of March 14, 2018, it is difficult to find that the court's determination of the time of treatment of the deceased was 5 days after the surgery, and that the time of treatment of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd surgery.

2) Determination as to the assertion of breach of duty to report delegated affairs

As seen earlier, it was confirmed that the medical personnel of the Defendant Hospital was damaged by the general fences of the Deceased on February 14, 2018, and that the sap leakage that occurred to the Deceased was caused by damage to the above general fences. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendants concealed it to the Plaintiffs. Rather, according to the evidence No. 9, it is recognized that the Defendants merely stated “the name of diagnosis (including the present state of the patient)” in the written consent for the third alcohol surgery from the Plaintiffs, which the Defendants received from the Plaintiffs. Thus, the above assertion by the Plaintiffs is without merit.

3) Existence of causation

In order to recognize liability for civil tort, there is sufficient proximate causal relationship between the act of negligence and the damage. Therefore, even if the act of negligence is so long as the act of negligence caused by other causes, the liability for damages can be reduced to the degree of contribution of the other causes, and the causal relationship is not denied, and the damage is increased even if the damage was not caused by the act of negligence (such as the aggravation of the victim's symptoms), the liability can be reduced by evaluating the degree of contribution, and the expanded damage can also be recognized.

Based on the above facts, the Defendant hospital’s negligence at the time of the operation, i.e., the Plaintiff’s negligence at the time of the operation, i.e., the Plaintiff’s death, and the Plaintiff’s negligence at the time of the operation, i.e., the Plaintiff’s 1’s death, and the Plaintiff’s negligence at the time of the first operation, were indicated as the cause of the death and the causal relationship between the deceased’s death. In addition, it is difficult to view that the Defendant hospital’s 1’s death and the Plaintiff’s death and the Defendant’s 1’s death and the Plaintiff’s death and the Defendant’s 1’s death and the Defendant’s 1’s death and the Plaintiff’s death were the cause of the 6th operation, and that the Defendant’s 1’s death and the Defendant’s 1’s death and the Defendant’s 1’s death and the Defendant’s 1’s death and the Defendant’s 2’s death and injury were also considered as the following factors.

4) Sub-committee

As a result, Defendant Park’s death is liable for damages to the Plaintiffs due to the breach of the above duty of care, and the Defendant’s educational foundation’s educational foundation’s educational foundation’s ○○ University is liable for its employer’s liability as the employer of the Defendant Hospital’s medical staff, including the Defendant’s death, and both

C. Scope of liability for damages

(i) lost earnings;

Since it is difficult to determine the name of the deceased as a patient who was suffering from the previous workplace cancer, it is difficult to determine the name of the deceased, and it is impossible to calculate the lost income, etc. because it is unclear to what extent the work ability remains during that period. Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim for lost income against the defendant is without merit.

2) Funeral expenses

The plaintiff's father-child's 2.5 million won and the plaintiff's father-child's 2.5 million won are recognized to have been paid respectively.

3) Consolation money

The above negligence of the medical personnel of the Defendant Hospital is clear in light of the empirical rule that the deceased and the plaintiffs suffered mental suffering because the sap leakage of the deceased occurs and the medical personnel of the Defendant Hospital failed to receive appropriate treatment. Therefore, the Defendants are obliged to do so in money.

With respect to the amount of consolation money that the Defendants are liable to compensate for to the Plaintiffs, the amount of consolation money shall be determined as KRW 30 million, Plaintiff’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s disease status, Defendant’s negligence degree and possibility of criticism, and other various circumstances shown in the argument of this case, based on the health team, the deceased’s age, status status, the process and consequence of the operation and treatment of this case, etc.

(iv) inheritance relations;

The Plaintiffs, each parent of the deceased, inherited KRW 30 million (i.e., KRW 30 million X 1/2 of the deceased’s portion).

5) Sub-committee

Therefore, the Defendants jointly and severally have a duty to resist the scope of the Defendants’ performance obligation from January 17, 2018, which is the tort of this case where the first operation of the instant case was conducted with respect to the Plaintiff’s literature father-child and Lee Jong-dong, respectively (i.e., inheritance amount of KRW 15 million + funeral expenses of KRW 2.5 million + unique consolation money of KRW 15 million) and damages for delay calculated by 12% per annum under the Civil Act until November 19, 2020, which is the date of the declaration of this case, until November 19, 2020, from the next day to the date of full payment.

3. Determination on a counterclaim

The defendant educational foundation 00 university (hereinafter referred to as "Defendant 00 university") is seeking payment of the amount equivalent to the medical expenses payable to the plaintiffs as a counterclaim.

According to the evidence evidence No. 8, the patient’s total amount of the patient’s burden among the medical expenses for the Defendant hospital of the Deceased may be recognized as the cause of 22,756,253. Thus, the Plaintiffs are obligated to pay to Defendant ○ University the remainder of 4,50,000 won after deducting the amount of KRW 18,256,250 paid from the said money.

The plaintiffs asserted that they exempted the remainder of the medical expenses of Defendant ○ University. Accordingly, according to the statements in the evidence Nos. 13 and No. 8, the plaintiffs' defenses can be acknowledged as follows: (a) transferred KRW 4.5 million from the side of the medical department of Defendant ○ University to the account held in the name of the deceased on June 25, 2018; (b) the facts indicated as the "4.5 million won per total amount" on the account statement of the medical expenses for the deceased issued by Defendant ○ University; and (c) according to the above facts recognized as above, it is recognized that Defendant ○ University exempted the remainder of 4.5 million won from the obligation to pay the medical expenses. Therefore, the above plaintiffs' defense is justified.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims are reasonable within the above recognized scope, and the plaintiffs' remaining claims for the principal lawsuit and the counterclaim claims against the defendant ○○ University are without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

The presiding judge, judges, Ginju

Judges Cho Jae-soo

On the present date of judge

1) The coagum is limited to a specific part of the mouth and in which the coagum is stored.

2) Edscopic Reticade Choangacreatograthy;

(iii) Magaltic Regulatoryade Choangopacreagraphy;

4) An operation to inserting pipes outside the body when there is a storage of an amount deemed to be unnecessary or cause a reduction in the body of the patient.

5) In the event there is a storage of an amount deemed to be unnecessary within the mouth of the patient or to be caused by infections, an official to remove the amount outside the body.

It is a procedure to be entered.

6) It means damage to the General Council.