logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.10.27 2013나44043
손해배상(의)
Text

1. The plaintiffs' appeal and the plaintiff's successor's claim are all dismissed.

2. After an appeal is filed.

Reasons

1. The reasons stated in this part are as follows, and this part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The following parts shall be added to the fourth horse at the bottom of the third part (hereinafter referred to as the "instant operation" in combination with the first operation and the second operation:

The following shall be added to the fourth and fifth parts of the Act:

D. Upon the Plaintiff’s request, the succeeding intervenor paid KRW 3,491,790 in total as the bereaved family’s benefits due to the death of the deceased to the said Plaintiff from July 25, 2013 to September 23, 2016.

To add evidence 1, 2, 4-1, 2 to the "Ground for recognition" of heading 5, and 6 of heading 4.

2. Judgment on the plaintiffs' assertion of negligence in treatment

A. The gist of the plaintiffs' assertion was that the defendant F damaged the deceased's 3th century by negligence during the operation. The medical personnel of the defendant hospital was negligent in leaving the deceased for two (2) hours even after the blood scopic disease and scopic symptoms caused by mass transfusion and mass blood transfusion after the second operation, while leaving the deceased for three (3) hours. Since the deceased died by negligence, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to compensate the plaintiffs for losses (75,562,417 won, consolation money 20 million won, funeral expenses paid by the plaintiff A, funeral expenses paid by the plaintiff, and consolation money of the plaintiff 1,50 million won, and the remainder of the plaintiff 1,50 million won).

B. The applicable legal practice is an area requiring high level of expertise, and is not an expert, and there is a causal link between the doctor’s duty of care and the breach of duty of care.

arrow