208 Gohap37143 Compensation (Definition)

1. Kim○-○ (○○ - ○)

Speaker-si ○ ○

2. ○○ (O.O.O.O.O.)

3. ○○○ (O Lee) O.O.O. ○○. S. S.C.

4. ○○○ (O.O. 0. ○. ○. ○○)

Defendant 3 and 4 are minors, and the legal representative ○○○, a mother

○ Kim

Plaintiff 2 through 4’s address of the United States of America, California Luxembourgel ○

[Defendant-Appellee] Kim & Lee LLC, Counsel for defendant-appellee

[Defendant-Appellant]

1. Kim○-○ (O -O);

Seoul Seocho-gu ○

Attorney Shin-ho, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

2. Incorporated foundation ○○

Speaker-si ○ ○

Representative leap○○○

Law Firm Sejong, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Attorney Lee In-bok

December 9, 2009

December 23, 2009

1. The Defendants jointly and severally pay 50,000,000 won and 5% per annum from July 7, 2005 to December 23, 2009 and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

2. All of the plaintiffs' remaining claims and the remaining plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

3. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The Defendants jointly and severally against the Plaintiff Kim ○, 660, 000, 000, 000, ○○○, ○○○, and ○○○.

In addition, from July 7, 2005 to the service date of a copy of the complaint of this case, each of the KRW 20,000,000, and each of them

shall pay 5% per annum and 20% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment.

1. Basic facts

On July 7, 2005, Plaintiff ○○○○○ operated by Defendant Incorporated Foundation (hereinafter “Defendant Incorporated Foundation”) for an expansion operation from Defendant Kim○○○. After the anesthesia for the operation, the Plaintiff ○○○○ was scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopics

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy

2. The assertion and judgment

Although there is no evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiffs asserted that they caused the overall toxicity by inserting drugs that exceed the net quantity into the blood bank so as to make it too soon or into the blood bank in the course of Defendant Kim ○○’s anesthesia.

Although the Plaintiffs asserted that there was a lack of emergency measures immediately after the Plaintiff Kim ○○’s launch, Defendant Kim ○ appears to have implemented appropriate cardiopulmonary resuscitations through the securing of the airway or through the supply of oxygen via an ample-, ample-bag (ambu - Bag), and through the Ephefin. However, it is difficult to readily conclude that brain damage was caused by the failure of an anti-competitive medication, even though it is recognized that the fact that it was not covered by the anti-competitive medications after the occurrence of light oil was found to have occurred, as the main cause for brain damage was a serious stop.

However, considering the fact that the discharge expansion surgery received by the Plaintiff Kim○○ needs to sufficiently guarantee the patient’s choice by way of the sex surgery for cosmetic purposes, and the side effects of the anesthesia for the surgery are low, but it can be fatal at the time of occurrence, Defendant Kim○ should have carefully explained the specific results of the surgery other than the abstract explanation, such as the fact that all anesthesias may occur during the surgery, and thus, Plaintiff Kim○○ was negligent in failing to exercise the substantial right of choice.

Therefore, Defendant Incorporated Foundation, the user of Defendant Kim ○ and Defendant Kim ○○, is jointly and severally liable to compensate the Plaintiff Kim○○ for damages caused by the Defendants’ breach of duty of care. However, it cannot be deemed that the Defendants’ breach of duty of care is equal to that of the Defendants’ breach of duty of care caused in the course of medical invasion on their body. Therefore, the Defendants’ breach of duty of explanation is limited to compensation for mental damages caused by the Defendants’ breach of duty of care. However, the degree of the Plaintiff Kim ○○’s failure to explain is very serious; Defendant Kim ○○’s explanation is abstract, and it seems practically difficult for the Plaintiff Kim ○○ to exercise this right of choice; Defendant Kim ○ was de facto difficult to conclude that Plaintiff Kim ○ was damaged by low-carbon brain injury caused by Defendant Kim ○○’s failure to exercise his right of self-determination; Defendant Kim ○○’s claim for consolation money is difficult to relieve the degree of injury to low-carbon 0 patient’s brain injury, and Defendant 1 already paid the remaining amount of consolation money to Defendant 2416.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap's evidence 1 through 7, 11 through 15, 18, 19, Eul's evidence 1 through 17, Eul's evidence 1 through 4, Eul's evidence 1 through 4, appraiser Lee ○, Lee ○○, each physical appraisal result of Lee ○○, appraiser's each physical appraisal result, appraiser's door ○, safe ○, and pregnant ○, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff Kim ○-○'s claim is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the rest of the claim is dismissed as it is without merit. The rest of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

judges of the presiding judge;