logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2016.09.08 2014가합21513
손해배상(의)
Text

1. The Defendants jointly share KRW 824,877,146, Plaintiff B and C, respectively, and each of them.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. Plaintiff A is a woman born at the L Hospital located in Seo-gu Daejeon (hereinafter “Defendant Hospital”). Plaintiff B is the father of Plaintiff A and Plaintiff C are the mother of Plaintiff A.

Defendant E, F, G, H, and I are those operating the Defendant Hospital; Defendant D is the main physician of Plaintiff C; Defendant J is the watchkeeping in charge of Plaintiff A’s delivery.

B. On November 4, 201, the Plaintiff C received a pregnancy diagnosis at the Defendant Hospital on the day of the pre-delivery examination and received a periodic pre-delivery examination (at the time of the pre-delivery), and there was no special opinion in the examination of a dead child, etc.

On May 13, 2012, which is the 6th sixth day of pregnancy, when the mountain field diagnosis was conducted on May 13, 2012, the umbaculum was found to have twice the timber of the fetus (defluence, n.e., n.c.), and on June 21, 2012, it was confirmed that the light fluor was unfluened one time in around June 21, 2012.

C. 1) On June 27, 2012, the fifth day of pregnancy 40 weeks, the Plaintiff C was hospitalized in the Defendant Hospital on June 27, 2012, and was hospitalized in the Defendant Hospital and was hospitalized in the Defendant Hospital at around 22:30. At the time, the Plaintiff C’s self-satisf was replaced by 5-6cm, the Plaintiff’s satisfinium was almost satisfined, and the fetus was almost unsatisfined. 2) Plaintiff C was inspected from around 00:40 on June 28, 2012 to 01:25. In particular, the number of fetus heart was reduced to less than 100 on June 28, 2012.

From around 02:00 on the same day, the nurse of the Defendant Hospital administered the Rotototom (Lotommon) and the Defendants did not record the medication on the 4-minutes No. 2’s 4-minutes. The Defendants asserted to the effect that the Matomtom was not used as a promotion agenda since the Matomtom was administered around 03:30, the birth of the Plaintiff A at around 03:30, respectively, on the two pages of the medical instruction of the 3-minutes No. 2.

1. However, the above nature is delivered.

arrow