(영문) 부산지방법원 2013.7.12.선고 2012나19366 판결

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs 12,50,000 won with 5% interest per annum from February 5, 2012 to the service date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

The decision of the first instance court in the final appeal is revoked. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed in entirety.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant is a medical corporation operating the "G Hospital" located in the Busan LOF (hereinafter referred to as the "Defendant Hospital"), and the Plaintiffs are the inheritors as the children of H (Is and hereinafter referred to as "the deceased"). However, on February 1, 2012, the Plaintiffs appear to have been hospitalized in the Defendant Hospital on the part of the deceased, and on February 1, 2012, the deceased was hospitalized in the Defendant Hospital. The Defendant Hospital, which is a convalescent hospital, hospitalized and treated the patients with disabilities, was subject to a simple dementia examination (MiM2 State Exa) in order to hospitalization, and the degree of disability is divided into seven stages as follows, and the nurse of the Defendant Hospital, who inspected the deceased, was at least 4 degrees of disability of the Deceased.

[Extent of recognition disability] One step (less of disability): Stage 2 (less of disability of recognition): 3 step in the initial stage (in a minor recognition disorder): The time of the confusion between the last step and the fourth step (in a minor recognition disorder): the time of the confusion between the last step and the last step of his life, etc., which show clear disability: In a way that he is unable to properly memory his own important past history, and in a way that his personal history is forgotten, and that there is a hindrance to going out and cash management: Early dementia 6 step (in a way of recognition of a serious evidence): The early dementia 7 step in the first step (in a way of recognition of a serious evidence): the end of the last step: the end of the dementia.

D. At the time of hospitalization, the Defendant hospital: (a) reported that the Deceased appears to be rejected and uneasiness for hospitalization at the time of hospitalization; and (b) attempted to administer a water exemption and psychotropic stability medication; (c) requested that the Plaintiff, A, and B be excluded from the prescription of water exemption and psychotropic stability; (d) the Defendant hospital did not prescribe and administer the relevant medicine.

E. Meanwhile, Plaintiff A and B administered water exemption and psychotropic stability as prescribed before the date of hospitalization to the Deceased, and thereafter, the Plaintiffs and Defendant Hospital did not administer water exemption and psychotropic stability to the Deceased.

F. At around 18:00 on February 3, 2012, the third day of hospitalization, the Deceased was absent from the Defendant Hospital, and was missing, and on February 4, 2012, around 04:26, the following day was discovered as a dead body in the front of the Songpo-gu, Seo-gu, Busan, Seo-gu, Busan, and the cause of death was presumed as follows.

G. The CCTV installed in the Defendant Hospital was recorded in the form that the deceased was 30 minutes of 30 minutes of losofts in the sick room where the elevator was installed before and after February 3, 2012, when the deceased was recovered from the patient’s clothes. However, there was no circumstance in which the medical professionals or employees of the Defendant Hospital discovered and restrain the deceased’s her movement.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 through 9, Eul evidence 1, 3, 4, and 5 (including each number), part of the testimony of the witness at the trial court and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

(a) Occurrence of liability for damages;

(1) According to the above facts, the employees of the Defendant hospital, whose main duties are the care of the elderly dementia patients and the elderly patients, etc. who are subject to hospitalization (Article 36 subparag. 3 of the Medical Service Act, and Article 36 of the Enforcement Rule of the Medical Service Act), who are the employees of the Defendant hospital, whose main duties are the care of the deceased. The deceased was aware of the circumstances such as the deceased's recent absence of a well-known memory and the deceased's refusal and apprehension of hospitalization, which may have an opportunity for the deceased to leave the hospital at any time at any time. As such, the deceased was able to anticipate the possibility of leaving the hospital, at any time, by thoroughly observe the deceased's behavior along with the appropriate drugs for the deceased, by thoroughly observing the deceased's actions, and by thoroughly controlling access to the hospital, he/she must have a duty of care to prevent the deceased from getting out of the hospital on his/her own with his/her own care or getting out of the impered accidents.

Nevertheless, the employees of the Defendant Hospital believe that the Plaintiffs are able to directly administer the necessary psychological stability agents, etc., and did not sufficiently control and supervise the medication to be performed under their own responsibility as a medical institution. The deceased neglected to protect and manage the deceased and neglected to leave the Defendant Hospital, thereby providing the cause of the death of the deceased. Thus, the Defendant, as an employer, is liable to compensate the deceased and the Plaintiffs for the damages suffered by the deceased due to the death of the deceased.

(2) On the other hand, the defendant alleged that the defendant did not assume the responsibility for the unclaimed escape of the patient at the time of hospitalization, and the defendant did not hold the responsibility for the damages of the patient due to the unclaimed outing and staying outside of the hospital, and according to the evidence No. 6 (Agreement of Hospitalization), the defendant stated in principle that the patient is liable for the damages of the patient due to the unclaimed and staying outside of the hospital against the legitimate medical care guidelines or education of the medical institution, and the above hospitalization agreement is acknowledged as signed by the plaintiff A and B, but the purport of the above agreement is recognized as the fact that the patient was responsible for the accident caused by the violation of the legitimate control of the defendant hospital, and it does not apply to the case of the patient as a matter of principle as to whether the normal patient who does not have any disability, the meaning of the medical institution's legitimate guidance or education

(b) Scope of damages;

(1) The plaintiffs seek the payment of consolation money only, and this is examined exclusively.

In light of the empirical rule that the plaintiffs, who are the deceased and their children, suffered mental pain due to the unlawful acts of the employees of the defendant hospital, have a duty to care for them in money. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay consolation money. The accident of this case occurred in the health room, the deceased's failure to observe the defendant hospital and 3 days only, and the deceased does not leave the hospital at the time of negligence of surveillance, but leave the elevator at around 18:00, 30 minutes around the elevator and left the hospital naturally using the elevator, and any person among the employees of the defendant hospital did not take necessary measures in this process. It is reasonable to determine consolation money from 00,000 won to 200,000 won per annum, and to pay consolation money from 00,000 won per annum to 200,000 won per annum as well as 300,000 won per annum as to each of the plaintiffs.

3. Conclusion, if so, the plaintiffs' claims of this case are justified within the scope of each of the above recognition, and each of the remaining claims is dismissed as it is without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance is just in this conclusion, and the defendant's appeal against the plaintiffs is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.