206 Gaz. 16140 Damages (Definition)

1. P1 (37 Years and Females);

2. P24 years old and inn;

3. P3 (Credit for 66 Years)

4. P4(68 years old, South Korea)

[Judgment of the court below]

[Judgment of the court below]

D.(63 years old, South)

Attorney Choi Jung-sik, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Attorney O Jong-chul

August 13, 2008

September 17, 2008

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff P1 an amount of KRW 61,560,213, plaintiff P2, P3, and P4 each amount of KRW 1,00,000 per annum from December 19, 204 to September 17, 2008, and an amount of KRW 20% per annum from the following day to the full payment date.

2. Each of the plaintiffs' remaining claims is dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit are four-minutes, and three of them are assessed against the plaintiffs, and the remainder is assessed against the defendant.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The defendant paid to the plaintiff PI 23,941,669 won, the amount of 5,00,000 won per annum from December 19, 2004 to the date of this decision, and the amount of 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Status of the parties

The non-party A (hereinafter referred to as the "the deceased") was escorted to the emergency room located in the city of Busan (hereinafter referred to as the "Defendant Hospital") in Busan (hereinafter referred to as the "Defendant Hospital"), which was operated by the defendant on January 12, 2004, and the non-party A (hereinafter referred to as the "the deceased") died after being escorted to the emergency room. The plaintiff P1 is the mother of the deceased, the plaintiff P2, P3 is the plaintiff P2, P3 is the deceased, and the plaintiff P4 is the defendant hospital. However, the progress at the defendant hospital

(1) Around 03:00 on December 19, 2004, the Deceased went out to the first floor above the ground level through the stairs of the Hem clubs located in Busan, which was reported by the 119 emergency squad staff, and sent out around 03:20 on the same day, the Deceased sent the Deceased to the emergency room of the Defendant hospital.

(2) At the time, the Deceased was suffering from food, pulmonary, cohesion, and pain reaction, but there was a small number of sacrine parts, was asked to nose, was sacrine, and was sacrine, and was sacrine. A first responder who escorted the Deceased was Nonparty B, an assistant nurse to the emergency hospital of the Defendant.

(3) The non-party C and the assistant nurse, who is a doctor in charge of the night emergency room at the defendant hospital, were to look at the deceased's pulmonary, East-man, knee-se-se-se-se-se-se-se-se-se-se-se-se-se-se-se-se-se-se-se-se-se-se-se-se-se-se-se-se-se-se-se-se-se-se-se-se-se-se-se-se-se-se-se-se-se-se-se-se-se-se-se-se-se-se-se-se-se

(c) Progress after discharge and the death of the Deceased;

(1) The Plaintiff P4 et al. laid the deceased’s house on the spot, and sent the deceased to a X-university hospital on the same day, around 15:40 on the same day, to the end of 15:00 on the same day.

(2) At the time of the AX University Hospital, the deceased was in a state where consciousness was mixed, and where the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the deceased was in serious condition. As a result of the CT photographing on the deceased, the medical personnel at X University Hospital recommended the above plaintiffs to perform the tension removal surgery on the deceased, but upon the request of the above plaintiffs, the medical personnel at X University Hospital recommended the above plaintiffs to perform the tension removal surgery on the deceased, while performing the cT photographing surgery on the 22th of the same month, the deceased's consciousness was under way, and the tension removal surgery was conducted on the 22th of the same month, and the concentrating treatment was performed in the patient room after the surgery (the use of the medication treatment, the operation, the management of the body of the surgery, the artificial renal, and the tension removal of the body of the body of the deceased. However, on January 13, 2005, the deceased was in a state of cerebral tension removal surgery.

(1) A brain dystrophism refers to a state in which cystrophical changes, such as brain cells, blood cells, strophism, fladism, and dystrophism, occur due to severe dystrophism when the cerebral dystrophism becomes two parts of the cerebral dystrophy, and the cerebral dystrophism, such as brain cells, blood transfusion, strophy, and dystrophy. Since the cerebral dystrophy becomes worse when the cerebral dystrophy becomes two parts of the cerebral dystrophy, the dystrophal dystrophy may be prevented by removing the surrounding parts of the cerebral dys and implementing the dystrophy dystrophy surgery. Generally, treatment of the cerebral dystrophy should be affected by the degree of severe brain pressure.

(2) In light of the principle of treatment, the climatic climatic climatic climatical climatic climatic climatic climatic climatic climatic climatic climatic climatic climatic climatic climatic climatic climatic climatic climatic climatic climatic climatic climatic climatic climatic climatic climatic climatic climatic climatic climatic climatic climatic climatic climatic climatic climatic climatic climatic climatic climatic climatic climatic climatic climatic climatic climatic climatic climatic climatic al.

(3) Where two parts are damaged, a basic test, such as the patient’s active symptoms (e.g., blood pressure, physical temperature, beer, pulmonary water, etc.) and neological tests, must be conducted, and if the head is doubtful, the head’s thT photographing, etc. should be confirmed by the head’s CTgraph, etc.

[Reasons for Recognition: omitted]

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The parties' assertion

(1) The plaintiffs

At the time when the deceased was escorted to the defendant hospital, there was a circumstance to suspect brain pains, such as her cryp was broken down and her cryp was salkings, and the medical personnel at the defendant hospital was notified of such circumstances by the 119 first responder, and thus, the medical personnel at the defendant hospital was subject to active treatment by examining the condition of the deceased, or by transferring the deceased to a larger hospital without checking the condition of the deceased’s duty of care to receive appropriate treatment. However, the deceased returned home without examining the condition of the deceased, and resulting in the deceased’s death by being deprived of the opportunity to receive appropriate treatment, such as early medication until being escorted to the X University hospital after 12 hours from that time or after the lapse of 12 hours from that of the deceased, and thus, the defendant, the employer of the defendant hospital at the above et al. C et al., is liable for damages suffered by the plaintiffs

(2) Defendant

As long as the medical team of the Defendant Hospital did not seem to have symptoms after conducting a basic test, such as blood pressure and beer, of the deceased, the Defendant Hospital was likely to conduct an accurate diagnosis of the deceased, and thus, the Defendant Hospital recommended the deceased to undergo a medical examination at the third hospital. However, the Plaintiffs were at fault on the part of the Defendant Hospital because they were home home without disregarding the solicitation of the Defendant Hospital and leaving the deceased to the third hospital without leaving the deceased to the third hospital. In the case of acute cerebral cerebral cerebral son, which is the cause of the death of the deceased, it cannot be prevented by the pharmacologic or surgery. Therefore, there cannot be a causal relationship between the measures of the Defendant Hospital and the death of the deceased. Moreover, the Plaintiffs cannot be said to have refused to undergo an emergency surgery at a X University Hospital and died of the deceased. As such, there is no causal relationship between the measures of the Defendant Hospital and the death of the deceased.

B. Determination

According to the above facts, it is determined that the medical personnel at the Defendant hospital who treated the deceased who lost consciousness beyond drinking conditions and was escorted, as seen above, there were several instances where the deceased was faced with her head, and the part of the deceased’s sensium was asked with her sensium, and the her sensium was found to have been dead, and the possibility that the deceased was suffering from brain injury caused by two wounds was possible. In light of the above facts, it is difficult to distinguish the symptoms of drinking patients such as the deceased from drinking alcohol due to her medical team, and it is difficult to distinguish whether the above symptoms were caused by alcohol, and if it is doubtful at the same time, it is probable that her head and pasium were damaged, etc., and if it is not required to observe her head and pasium, it would be possible to promptly release the deceased from the hospital without being exposed to the risk of brain damage caused by the death of the deceased, such as her head and pasium damage, and it would be possible that the patient’s pas body would not be exposed within a short time.

Nevertheless, the Defendant hospital’s medical staff at the Defendant hospital did not fully inform Plaintiff P1 and P4 of the possibility of brain damage or the necessity of additional inspections such as CT photographing, etc., while concluding that the Defendant hospital’s medical staff at the Defendant hospital is likely to conduct accurate diagnosis, and that the hospital received an inspection at a large hospital for accurate diagnosis.

In addition, as seen earlier, the deceased was in a state where food was not recovered after the discharge from the Defendant hospital. Accordingly, it is reasonable to deem that the delay in the treatment period for the deceased was caused by the above negligence by the medical personnel of the Defendant hospital, in view of the fact that the deceased was in a state where he was escorted to the X University Hospital and the deceased was diagnosed by brain salvine, salutical refladation surgery, and salposis removal surgery, and the result of the examination at the X University Hospital after three days after the diagnosis at the X University Hospital.

Therefore, the defendant, who is the employer of the medical team of the defendant hospital, is liable to compensate the deceased and the plaintiffs for the damages caused by the death of the deceased due to the above mistake by the medical team.

C. Limitation on liability

According to the above facts of recognition, when the deceased was escorted to the defendant hospital, the medical personnel at the defendant hospital was under normal circumstances after examining the deceased's respiratory, kne-man's death, kne-man's death, and kne-man's injury, and confirmed the deceased's blood pressure and febbbing. At that time, it was difficult to conclude that the defendant hospital could have easily recovered even after conducting an operation and hospitalized treatment by examining the CR shooting and brain ties, etc. at the defendant hospital. In light of the situation at the time of the deceased, it is difficult to conclude that the medical personnel at the defendant hospital recommended the plaintiff P4 et al. to undergo a 3 hospital and undergo an examination. In light of the fact that the plaintiffs refused to recommend the operation at the X University hospital and delayed the operation of the deceased, even if the plaintiffs caused the accident at issue as seen earlier, imposing all damages incurred to the defendant only on the defendant in light of the characteristics of the medical act and the degree of risk, etc., and thus, the defendant should compensate the defendant's damages.

3. Scope of damages.

(a) A lost income (compact) No. 257,030,967 won;

(b) Daily retirement allowance (for example), 17,770,102 won;

(c) Medical expenses;

The plaintiffs asserted that, due to the negligence of the medical staff of the defendant hospital, the deceased was responsible for the payment of KRW 6,771,639, as the deceased was to undergo an operation at the X University Hospital. However, it cannot be concluded that there was a causal relationship with the negligence of the medical staff of the defendant hospital. Therefore, the above assertion is without merit.

(d) Funeral expenses.

Plaintiff P1’s expenditure of KRW 3,000,000

[Reasons for Recognition: Facts without dispute]

E. Limitation of liability

(1) The defendant's liability ratio: 20%

(2) Calculation

(A) X 20% = 54,960,213 won, 274,801,069 won (i.e., gold 257,030,967 won + gold 17,770,102)

(B) Funeral expenses paid by Plaintiff P1 = X 20% = 600,000 won

(1) Grounds for consideration

The circumstances and results of the accident of this case, the defendant's grounds for limitation of liability, gender and age of the deceased, and all other circumstances shown in the argument of this case.

(2) The amount determined;

Deceased: 5,000,000 won for each of the plaintiffs: 1,000,000 won

(g) Inheritance relationship;

A total of 59,960,213 won (54,960,213 won in lost earnings and lost retirement allowances + 5,00,000 won in consolation money) for the deceased, Plaintiff P1 succeeds to the deceased.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff P1 the amount of KRW 61,560,213 (i.e., the amount of KRW 59,960,213 in inheritance + KRW 600,000 in funeral expenses + KRW 1,00,000 in consolation money + KRW 1,00,000 in consolation money) to the plaintiff P2, P3, and P4, respectively, and 5% per annum under the Civil Act from December 19, 2004 until September 17, 2008, which is the date of this sentencing, until September 17, 2008, and 20% per annum as stipulated under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, etc. from the following day to the date of full payment. Accordingly, the plaintiffs' claims are accepted within the scope of each recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges of the presiding judge, Kim Dong-ho

Judge Choi Jong-in

Judges Nam Sung-woo