beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal and the conjunctive claim added in the trial are all dismissed.
2. After an appeal is filed.
Reasons
1. The reasoning for the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the following determination as to the conjunctive claims added in the court of first instance as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Judgment on the conjunctive claim
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant did not need hospital treatment and received unnecessary hospital treatment despite the possibility of hospital treatment. As such, the Plaintiff is obligated to return the insurance money received from the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment. The scope of return of unjust enrichment is 24,70,000 won (=494 days x 50,000 won) in total, which the Defendant received with respect to 494 days unfairly hospitalized from 2008 to 2015, and damages for delay.
B. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances, the following: (a) 1 to 7 evidence Nos. 1, 10, and 11 (including serial numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply); and (b) 3 to the head of the Si/Gun/Gu hospital and the overall purport of the pleadings as a result of the fact inquiry into the head of the D Hospital; (c) the result of the request for the examination of medical records to the head of the Association of the Korean Medical Doctors Association for the examination of the first instance; and (d) each
It is insufficient to recognize that there was excessive hospitalized treatment than the necessary period, and there is no other evidence to recognize it.
Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion, which is premised on the defendant's non-necessary or excessive hospitalization, is without merit.
(1) The need for hospitalization may vary depending on the patient’s health condition, situation, etc. at the time of hospitalization, and since it is not uniformly determined depending on the type of disease, it is reasonable to deem that the medical judgment of the doctor in charge of the hospitalized treatment, drug treatment, and transitional observation for the defendant was based on the medical judgment of the doctor in charge, and this shall be respected unless there