beta
Text
1.(a)
Defendant E and F jointly share the Plaintiff’s KRW 99,523,974, and KRW 3,00,000, and KRW 1,000 to Plaintiff C and D, respectively.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. (1) On April 16, 2013, Plaintiff A is the H Hospital located in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seocheon-si (hereinafter “Defendant Hospital”) (hereinafter “Defendant Hospital”).
(2) The Plaintiff’s husband, Plaintiff C, and D are children of Plaintiff A. 2. Defendant F is a person who has performed an operation with the Plaintiff, and Defendant A is a person who operates the Defendant Hospital, Defendant Samsung Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Samsung Insurance Co., Ltd.”) on March 20, 2013. From March 20, 2013 to March 20, 2014, the insurance period of the Defendant Hospital, the contractor and the insured, the Defendant Hospital, the insurance period of the Plaintiff’s medical malpractice (one accident) and KRW 100 million, the amount of medical malpractice deduction (one accident) and the amount of medical malpractice deduction (hereinafter “instant insurance”).
B. On March 29, 2013, Plaintiff A applied to the Defendant hospital due to the hurgical symptoms and leg hurgical symptoms. The outcome of the physical satisfaction and satisfaction dropout was shown as a result of the video examination, and there was an opinion on the hurgical escape symptoms of the congested vertebrate in spine No. 4-5, and the hurgical vertebrate hurgy. 2) hospitalized at the Defendant hospital on April 15, 2013. On April 16, 2013, Plaintiff A complained of hurgic pain, hurgic emission, and hurgic hurgic hurgic hurgic hurgic hurgic hurgic hurgic hurgic hurgic hurgic hurgic hurgic hurgic hurgic hurgic hurgic hurgic hal.
3) After the operation, nephical pains, such as abnormal typhism, low flusium, and small rupture, continue to undergo nephical pains, and the left-hand lebucks were given with pains in the left-hand lebucks, left-hands part, and the benefit book. 4) As a result of the MRI inspection conducted around July 30, 2013, it was shown that there was an opinion on malphism between the ethical trends-1 and the ethic 1thic mar for the purpose of reducing the new pressure on Defendant F’s house.