2015 Ba5131 Compensation (Definition)

A person shall be appointed.

Since it is a minor, the legal representative B and C

1. D;

2. E:

April 12, 2017

April 26, 2017

1. The Defendants jointly pay to the Plaintiff 10,00,000 won with 5% interest per annum from November 12, 2014 to April 26, 2017, and 15% interest per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. 4/5 of the costs of lawsuit is assessed against the Plaintiff, and the remainder is assessed against the Defendants, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The Defendants jointly share the Plaintiff KRW 54,962,328, and KRW 50,00 among them, and KRW 00,000 among them.

11. From December 12, 200 to 2, 625, and 410 won among them: from July 17, 2015 to 1,538, 318 won among them;

From November 30, 2016, to 14.10, to 798, and to 600 won respectively, respectively.

Until the date of service of a copy of the complaint of this case, 5% per annum and 15% per annum from the following day to the date of complete payment.

The payment shall be made at each rate of money.

1. Basic facts

A. Defendant D is an assistant nurse who works in Gsan F in the original city, and Defendant E is the president with the above father and mother. The Plaintiff is a person born in H’s father and mother.

B. Defendant D, around 00: around 00, at around 00, failed to confirm in advance the location of a person who was seated after the Plaintiff in the said father’s and the newborn baby room, caused the Plaintiff’s head to face against the left knee-hand side of Defendant D, while going beyond, and caused the Plaintiff’s head to face on the left kne-hand side of Defendant D (hereinafter “instant accident”);

C. After the instant accident, Defendant D reported the Plaintiff’s head to Defendant E. The Plaintiff’s head was sent to the Defendant, and the Plaintiff was sent to the Plaintiff to the original Symanian Hospital on November 12, 2014, around 07:45, and then was sent back to the Symanian Hospital on the following day.

D. The Plaintiff: (a) the Plaintiff’s occurrence of the instant accident on credit; (b) the Plaintiff’s occurrence of the two types of external wounds, and multiple types of products

The Plaintiff received treatment by suffering from injury. On December 7, 2015, the Plaintiff received a Grade 6 medical examination of brain disease disorders.

[Ground of recognition] The absence of dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 6 through 9, and 11 through 13 (which include various numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the result of the medical record appraisal on the president of the Korean Medical Association of the Court, the result of the fact inquiry into the National Pension Service by this court, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

According to the above facts, Defendant D has a duty of care to prevent the occurrence of an accident by guiding and supervising Defendant D, who is an assistant nurse, as the mother father and the president of the mountain village, because there is a risk of harming the newborn baby if it goes beyond water, and thus, Defendant D has a duty of care to prevent the occurrence of the accident by checking whether there was an obstacle in the vicinity of water and by paying stable water. While Defendant D has a duty of care to guide and supervise Defendant D, which is an assistant nurse, as the mother father and the president of the mountain village, it is reasonable to view that the accident of this case and the diagnosis of the second two types of external wound, composite part of the disease diagnosed by the Plaintiff, and the diagnosis of class 6 of the brain disease disorder caused causation.

Therefore, the Defendants jointly and severally are liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages incurred by the Plaintiff due to the instant accident (the Defendants also have no dispute over the existence of liability for damages).

3. Scope of damages.

A. The scope of the plaintiff's claim

Upon partial claims, the Plaintiff claims KRW 4,163,728 for medical expenses from March 2, 2015 to October 11, 2016, and KRW 798,60 for medicine and pain treatment expenses, and KRW 50,000 for consolation money.

(b) Expenses for medical treatment;

According to the facts without dispute and the statements in Gap evidence 5 and 10, from March 2, 2015 to October 2016.

11. It is recognized that the Plaintiff spent 4,163,728 won as medical expenses up to the date of treatment.

(c) Medicines expenses;

According to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 14 through 16, the plaintiff is from July 30, 2015 to October 11, 2016.

Until now, it is recognized that a total of KRW 127,20 ( = KRW 78,400 of an I pharmacy + KRW 17,00 of the J pharmacy + KRW 15,900 of the K pharmacy + KRW 15,900 of the L pharmacy + KRW 15,900 of the L pharmacy + KRW 15,900 of the medicine cost. Although the Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff spent KRW 159,00 of the I pharmacy on August 1, 2016, and KRW 15,90 of the I pharmacy on October 11, 2016, overlapping a claim for KRW 15,90 of the L pharmacy on October 11, 201, the overlapping claim is without merit).

D. The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff spent a total of KRW 639,600,00 for the treatment of outpatients for the treatment of outpatients. However, it is insufficient to recognize the above amount as an ordinary damage in proximate causal relation with the instant accident on the sole basis of the statement of evidence No. 16, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

The plaintiff's assertion is not accepted (Provided, That the circumstance that the plaintiff received hospital treatment due to the accident of this case shall be considered in the amount of consolation money).

(e) consolation money;

The plaintiff's consolation money shall be determined at KRW 10,00,000, taking into consideration the circumstances shown in the argument of this case, such as the background and result of the accident of this case, the contents and degree of the defendants' negligence, and the age and status of the plaintiff.

F. Mutual-1) The Defendants of criminal deposit money claim that Defendant D should deduct KRW 7,00,00,000 which Defendant D deposited for the Plaintiff from consolation money. According to each of the statements in the evidence Nos. 3 and 4, Defendant D’s deposit amount of KRW 7,00,00 for the Plaintiff, it is recognized that Defendant D deposited KRW 7,00,00 for the Plaintiff, but there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff paid the said deposit, and there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff paid the said deposit (the Plaintiff stated that there was no fact of paying the Defendant D’s deposit at the date of pleading on April 12, 2017). The Defendants’ aforementioned assertion is without merit.

The Defendants asserts that the damages amounting to KRW 26,285,360 should be deducted from the damages amount already paid to the Plaintiff. The facts that Defendant E paid KRW 26,285,360 to the Plaintiff in relation to the instant accident are no dispute between the parties concerned. Therefore, the above KRW 26,285,360 should be deducted from the damages amount for property, and KRW 26,285,360 should be deducted from the damages amount for property, and KRW 26,290,928 (= KRW 4,290,928 + KRW 4,163,728 + medicine expenses + KRW 127,200) shall not remain from the damages amount to be paid by the Defendants to the Plaintiff.

Furthermore, the Defendants asserts to the effect that, among the above 26, 285, 360 won, the above property damages of the Plaintiff exceed KRW 4,290,928, 21, 994, 432 won shall be deducted from consolation money on the ground that Defendant E paid consolation money. However, according to the overall purport of each of the statements and arguments and evidence Nos. 1 and 2, Defendant E appears to have paid the above KRW 26,285,360 to the Plaintiff as damages for property, including the Plaintiff’s medical expenses. Since the subject matter of lawsuit differs from the Plaintiff’s claim for consolation money, the remaining amount of KRW 21,294,432 shall not be deducted from consolation money after deducting KRW 4,290,928 from the Plaintiff’s property damages and KRW 26,285,360 shall not be deducted from consolation money. However, the above circumstances shall be separately determined when the Defendants calculated consolation money to the Plaintiff.

shall also take into account the circumstances.

G. Sub-committee

Therefore, the Defendants jointly have a duty to jointly pay to the Plaintiff 10,00,000 won and damages for delay at each rate of 15% per annum under the Civil Act until April 26, 2017, which is the date of the judgment of this case where it is deemed reasonable for the Defendants to dispute about the scope of their performance obligations from November 12, 2014, which is the date of the accident in this case.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Doocom

1) The Defendants stated the above amount as KRW 19,496,222 in their preparatory documents on December 7, 2016, but appears to be erroneous in the calculation of KRW 22,121,632.