In a case where Party A was diagnosed that the other veterinary hospital was suffering from breathitis and breathosis due to symptoms, such as urine urine and urine urine, and the symptoms continued to have been administered after being diagnosed by the veterinary hospital operated by the veterinarian after being diagnosed by the veterinarian, the case holding that Party B was liable to compensate Party B for the damage suffered by Party A due to the aggravation of urine urine urine’s symptoms due to urine urine urine’s medical negligence on the ground that Party A’s urine urine urine and urine urine urine urine was chronic due to the aggravation of urine urine

In a case where Party A received diagnosis that Party B visited the other veterinary hospital and the return dog suffered from cystitis and cystosis due to symptoms, such as urine and urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine her urine had been diagnosed by the veterinary hospital operated by the veterinarian, and the symptoms continued to have been diagnosed, the case holding that Party B is liable for damages suffered by Party A due to the aggravation of urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine and urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine ur.

Article 750 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

Defendant

Seoul Eastern District Court Decision 2008Gaso186847 Decided December 17, 2008

August 24, 2011

1. The judgment of the first instance court, including the Plaintiff’s claim expanded in the trial room, shall be modified as follows.

A. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 8,296,652 and KRW 7,296,652 from May 8, 2008 to KRW 1,00,000, the amount of KRW 5% per annum from May 27, 2009 to September 21, 2011, and KRW 20% per annum from September 22, 201 to the date of full payment.

B. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

2. The total costs of the lawsuit shall be five minutes, and one of them shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

3. Paragraph 1(a) of this Article may be provisionally executed.

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 11,20,000 won with 5% interest per annum from May 8, 2008 to the delivery date of a copy of the application for extension of claim and modification of cause of claim of this case, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment (the plaintiff extended the purport of the claim at the trial).

1. Facts of recognition;

The following facts are without dispute between the parties, Gap evidence 1-1 through 4, Eul evidence 3-1-2, Gap evidence 4-1 through 3, Gap evidence 5-1, Gap evidence 6-1, Gap evidence 8, 9, Gap evidence 14-1 through 3, Gap evidence 17, 18, 23-1, 35, Gap evidence 41-1, 42-1, 42-1, 47-2, Gap evidence 5-1 through 5-1, 5-2, Gap evidence 5-1, 52-1, 52-1, Gap evidence 5-2, 52-1, 59, 63, 65-2, 68, 70, 97-14, 5-1, 5-1, 5-1, 5-2, 5-1, 7-1, 9-1, 5-1, 7-4, 9-1, 7

가. 원고는, 원고가 키우는 페키니즈 암컷 반려견인 ‘쭌이’(2001. 12. 31.경 출생, 이하 ‘이 사건 반려견’이라고 한다)에게 다음, 다뇨, 빈뇨, 배뇨곤란, 혈뇨 등의 증상이 있자, 이 사건 반려견의 치료를 위하여 2008. 5. 8. 17:00경 당시 피고가 서울 송파구 잠실동 (이하 생략)에서 운영하던 ‘ ○○○한방동물병원’을 방문하였다.

B. On May 8, 2008, the Defendant diagnosed the return dog of this case, which the Plaintiff had experienced, and conducted urology tests. The result of the test shows that urology exceeds the normal range of ph8, and the Defendant again conducted urology tests and conducted a blood urology test on the return dog of this case at around 16:00 on May 9, 2008. Based on the result of the test, the Defendant determined that the return dog of this case had no symptoms, such as dynasium, dynasium, dynasium, dynasium, dynasium, and dynasium, etc. on the basis of the results of the test, and determined that the Plaintiff was affected by the urology of the return dog of this case, and that the Plaintiff was found to have been diagnosed to have only the ingredients of supplement to the urology, gynasium, gynasium, gynasium, and so forth to the Defendant at the time of this case.

C. The Plaintiff, even though the Plaintiff administered the “balurine” prescribed by the Defendant to the instant return dog, asked the Defendant on May 12, 2008, and responded to the Plaintiff to increase the volume of medicine prescribed by the Plaintiff. Accordingly, on May 15, 2008, the Plaintiff responded to the Plaintiff to the effect that the Plaintiff had temporarily ceased the instant return dog, and that the Plaintiff stopped the blood urine by phone calls to the Defendant, and that the Plaintiff did not return the instant urine because, if the Plaintiff had a urine in the instant return dog, the blood urine was not a medicinal factor for treating the urine, since the urine was not a medical substance for treating the urine, the Plaintiff did not return the instant urine by deeming the urine to have ceased.

D. After that, the Plaintiff did not stop due to the decline in the physical strength of the instant return dog and the recurrence of its symptoms. On May 26, 2008, the Plaintiff visited the instant return dog again and visited the said veterinary hospital. However, the Defendant, without entirely conducting urinology tests to diagnose burine infection (an examination to observe urine urine cells) and urine urine urine urgical tests, etc., provided that the instant return dog “surgical urgical urgical urgical urgical urine” as before.

E. The Plaintiff, even though the Defendant’s administration of “Smibal urine” all, continued the symptoms of the instant companional urine, visited the △△△ Animal Hospital located in the Geumnam-gu, Sungnam-si, Sungnam-si, on June 3, 2008, and diagnosed that the instant companional urine was suffering from luminous infection and luminous urine.

F. Considering that the symptoms of △△△ Animal Hospital complained of the Plaintiff from the end of April in the online counseling room of the above veterinary hospital, and the symptoms of urine and urine have been continued to reach the beginning of 6 months, the process of urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine and urine urine urine urine urine urine urine and urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine.

G. On June 4, 2008, the Plaintiff: (a) sent a phone call to the Defendant and administered the drug prescribed by the Defendant to the instant companion dog; (b) provided that the Plaintiff continued to dynasium, and (c) asked whether the veterinarian of the relevant veterinary hospital used the instant companion dog to ask the instant dynasium; and (b) asked the Defendant of the composition of the drug prescribed by the Defendant. Accordingly, the Defendant provided that the Plaintiff was “mixd with ingredients, such as gynasium, mountain water, gynasium, gynasium, and hynasium.”

H. After confirming that there is little possibility that the luminous intensity of the return dog might be caused through other veterinarians and Internet search, etc., the Plaintiff again visited the Defendant around June 9, 2008, and requested the Plaintiff to refund the medical expenses received from the Plaintiff in light of the fact that the Defendant was found to have been absent from 5mm from the luminous area of the return dog of this case as a result of an inspection by the veterinary hospital newly visited the Defendant, and that the Defendant was found to have failed to be absent from 5mm, and that the medical expenses received from the Plaintiff were found to have been found to have 25 days.

I. As above, the Defendant received a claim from the Plaintiff to the effect that the Defendant was erroneous, and stated in the column for separate examination of the return of this case in the medical records of the return of this case as having stated that the Defendant stated the prescription as having prescribed the “fluorium” for the purpose of treatment rather than the “fluorium” for the purpose of treatment.

(j) By the end of June 2008, the Plaintiff treated the luminous dump and luminous infection of the instant return dog at △△△△ Animal Hospital. From October 23, 2008 to October 23, 2008, the Plaintiff treated the instant return dog from the pertinent veterinary hospital. However, as blood therapy was not discontinued, the Plaintiff was transferred to the said △△△△ Animal Hospital on December 15, 2008, and was performing a re-treatment at the △△△△ Animal Hospital again from April 2009 to August 2009, the Plaintiff stated that the △△△△△△△ Animal Hospital had to take a re-treatment treatment at the △△△△△△△△△△△ Hospital, stating that the dump infection of the instant return dog would have re-exposed on a regular basis each time when she was exempted, and that it would have to be necessary to re-exploteinate a certain period of 5 to 8thic dum treatment."

(k) Meanwhile, on June 9, 2008 and June 11, 2008, the Plaintiff filed a summary order of KRW 3,000,000 with the court below's summary order issued on January 23, 2009, and received a 200,000,000,000 won from this court's appeal from the court on November 11, 2009 (the appellate court's summary order of KRW 2,00,000,000,000 from the above court's summary order issued on the ground that the Plaintiff posted an article to the public by revealing openly false facts via a computer connected the Internet with an intent to defame the Defendant (the Plaintiff was charged with defamation as above at the time of summary indictment, but the court filed an application for change of 2,00,000,000 won with the court's summary order of KRW 10,000 due to defamation, etc.).

타. 피고는 위와 같이 이 사건 반려견을 진료한 후, 기를 보충하는 효능을 가진 약물로서 그 성분이 ‘숙지황, 산수유, 택사, 복령, 목단피’ 등으로 구성된 ‘육미지황’을 처방하고, 이를 이 사건 반려견에 대한 진료기록부에 기재하였음에도, 2008. 6. 4. 원고가 진료비를 반환하여 달라고 요구하면서 피고의 오진 문제를 제기하자, 이후 이 사건 반려견에 대한 진료기록부에 ‘방광결석’이라고 기재하고, ‘용담사간탕’을 처방한 것처럼 기재함으로써 위 진료기록부를 조작하였음에도, 2009. 5. 27. 원고에 대한 이 법원 2009고정662호 정보통신망 이용촉진 및 정보보호 등에 관한 법률위반(명예훼손) 사건의 공판정에 증인으로 출석하여 선서하고 증언하면서 “증인(피고를 의미한다, 이하 같다)은 진료기록부를 고의적으로 위조한 사실이 있나요.”라는 검사의 신문에 대하여 “없습니다.”라고, “증인이 처방해 준 약을 먹고 잠깐 혈뇨가 멈췄는데 원고가 그 약에 대해 알아보았더니 산후복통, 안염에 좋은 약들이라고 하는데, 과연 그 약을 지속적으로 먹였을 때 이 사건 반려견에게 결석이 안 생겼을 것 같은가요.”라는 변호인의 신문에 대하여 “증인이 사용한 약이 ‘용담사간탕’이라는 것인데 ...”라고 각 진술함으로써 기억에 반하는 허위의 진술을 하여 위증을 하였다는 공소사실로 2010. 2. 3. 이 법원 2010고단207호 로 위증죄로 기소되어, 2010. 6. 21. 이 법원으로부터 징역 6월에 집행유예 2년의 판결을 선고받았다.

(m) After that, the Defendant appealed against the above judgment, and filed an appeal against this Court No. 2010No941. However, on December 30, 2010, this Court sentenced the Defendant to a fine of KRW 3 million,00,000 against the Defendant, on the ground that the Defendant, after giving medical treatment to the return dog of this case, provided that he/she was in a medical record as to the return dog of this case, and stated it in the medical record as to the return dog of this case. After making telephone conversations with the Plaintiff, the Defendant conspireds with the above medical record as stated in the above medical record as if he/she prescribed "use room", but he/she was present in the public trial of the case of violation of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, etc. (Defamation) against the Defendant's memory, and prescribed the "use room room" as to the instant return dog against the Defendant's memory. The above judgment became final and conclusive on January 7, 2011.

n. On June 14, 2011, the Plaintiff re-exploited the luminous and luminous dives of the return dog of this case. From that time, the Plaintiff treated the return dog of this case from that time until that time of the closing of argument in the trial.

(o) Medical information related to the instant case;

(1) A suspected disease when urbane is detected in a urcology test on urcology, etc. can be caused by a urcology, spathy, spathy, spathy, spathy, and dystrophy, etc., which can be caused by the influence of spathying feed, brutitis and dystrophy, etc. which appear in the urcule test, and other parts of the body where spathy or absence is not found, and there is very low possibility that urcium may occur due to a urcule that they were born in the urcule, etc., and it is difficult to occur before her absence, one month through 1 to 2 dystrophy, and it is difficult to find the dystrophy through a urculosis test, and it is difficult to measure the thickness of urculosis and urculitis through a urcology test.

(2) The absence from school due to a return dog, etc. is divided into the absence from a scarba and the absence from a sacium sacium. The absence from a sacacacacacacacacacacacacacacacacacacacacacs frequently occurred in female sacacacacacacacacaca, etc., which is well generated when sacacacacacacacacacacacacacacaca, which

(3) According to the book "herb medication hazard and herbsium map" in the issuance of the Korean Pharmacists' Association, the "malthalthalthalthalthalthalthalthalthalthalthalthalthalthalthalthalthalthalthalthalthy" is a medicine that strengthens the function of inter-livering and spreading, strengthens the function of urine and internal urine, and enhances the operation of urine and internal urine, which is prescribed to supplement the balthalthalthalthalthalthic disease, such as stress, mercury, and urine, and to make the urbalthalthalthalthalthalthalthalthalthic disease well known to the urine, which is prescribed to supplement the balthalthalthalthalthalthalthalthal and the balthalthalthalthalthalthalthalthy.

2. Determination on the claim for damages caused by medical negligence

(a) Occurrence of liability for damages;

(1) According to the above facts, on May 8, 2008, the Defendant, as a veterinarian, had symptoms such as urine urine and urine urine when the Plaintiff first visited the veterinary hospital operated by the Defendant. As a result, urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine was predicted, and urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine and urine urine urine urine urine urine was not conducted at all, although urine urine urine urine urine urine urine was not conducted at all, and the Defendant did not return the urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine.

(2) However, on May 8, 2008, the Plaintiff’s liability for damages against the Plaintiff should be limited to 80% of the Plaintiff’s liability, considering the following factors: (a) the age and health conditions of the instant companion dog at the time the Plaintiff visited the veterinary hospital operated by the Defendant for the first time to treat symptoms, such as urology, urology, urology, and urology; (b) the treatment period; and (c) the number of times the Defendant treated the instant companion dog; and (d) the future treatment period of the instant companion dog as seen below.

B. Scope of liability for damages

(1) Expenses for medical treatment;

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence 12-1 through 3, Gap evidence 25, 53, 161 through 166, the plaintiff paid 2,846,870 won in total from May 8, 2008 to July 8, 201, for the examination expenses, medical expenses, medicine expenses, week 1) S/D prescription type and week 2) C/D prescription type purchase expenses, and for urology purchase expenses. From the above 2,846,870 won to the other veterinary hospital around May 2008, the plaintiff suffered 76,000 won in total, 5,000 won in medical expenses + 20,000 won in urology test expenses + 20,000 won in urology test expenses + 20,000 won in urology test expenses + 76,000 won in urology test expenses.

(2) Costs of future treatment

(a) Gender and dog: The female, petel;

Date of birth: December 31, 2001

(B) Name of lease: approximately four years and four months (in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement No. 31 of A, the title of the return dog of this case shall be about 10 to 14 years. Considering that the title of the return dog of this case is about 14 years, it is reasonable to view that the title of the return dog of this case as of August 24, 201, which is the date of closing argument in the court of first instance, is about 4 years and 4 months).

(C) Amount of treatment costs

① In full view of all the arguments in Gap evidence and evidence Nos. 104, Gap evidence Nos. 170, Gap evidence Nos. 170, Gap evidence Nos. 171 and 173, the return dog of this case was diagnosed again due to chronic cystitis because it was impossible to properly treat cystitis during the red cystitis, and S/D can be melting cystitis that occurred to the return dog of this case, so it is impossible to use the animal again for a long period of 3 to 6 months, and can be dumped only for 1 to 7 months, c/D or c/D 17, 208, 1 to 4 to 4 to 7 to 4 to 4 to 1 to 7 to 1 to 7 to 1 to 2 to 2 to 4 to 1 to 2 to 4 to 2 to 1 to 2 to 2 to 4 to 1 to 2 to 2 to 3 to 2 to 1 to 2 to 4 to me to me to me to treat me from this case.

(2) Calculation

From August 25, 2011 to December 31, 2015, which is the end date of the life expectancy of the return dog of this case from August 25, 2011, the Plaintiff spent KRW 1,147,740 each year as future treatment costs, and calculated the current price as of May 8, 2008, which is the date of the Defendant’s medical negligence, by deducting the intermediate interest at the rate of 5% per annum, the sum of KRW 3,849,946 (= KRW 946,589 + + KRW 909,100 + + KRW 874,468 + KRW 842,377 + KRW 277,412).

·1,147,740 ± (1+0.05 x 3) x 51/12) x 946,589 Note 4)

·1,147,740 ± (1+0.05 x week 5) ± 63/12) x 909,100 won

·1,147,740 ± (1+0.05 x 6) ± 75/12) x 874,468 won

·1,147,740 ± (1+0.05 x 7) ± (1+0.05 x 7) x 87/12) x 842,377

·382,580 Note 8) ± (1+0.05 x week 9) x 91/12) x 277,412

(3) Limitation of liability

· The Defendant’s liability ratio: 80%

·6,620,816 won (=2,770,870 won + 3,849,946 won) x 0.8 = 5,296,652 won

(4) Consolation money

According to the facts acknowledged above, the return dog of this case, which had been living together for a considerable period of time, has been suffering from considerable mental suffering by treating the chronic cyde of the return dog of this case with considerable time and expenses for a long period of time, and continuously undergoing relevant inspections on a regular basis to prevent recurrence of chronic cypitis, or treating the case where chronic cypitis occurs, and thus, the defendant has a duty to pay the above mental suffering of the plaintiff in money. Thus, considering all circumstances revealed in the argument of this case such as the degree, possibility of recurrence, the name of the return dog of this case, treatment period, treatment details, and the degree of negligence of the defendant, etc., the compensation amount shall be set to 2,00,000 won, and the defendant has a duty to pay the plaintiff consolation money.

3. Determination on the claim for damages caused by perjury

(a) Occurrence of liability for damages;

(1) In a criminal case where a witness perjury, even though the defendant in the criminal case was not convicted, if the defendant was exposed to risks to receive a judgment of conviction due to the witness's false statement, it is recognized in light of the empirical rule that the defendant was suffering from mental suffering due to such false statement, so the witness who made a false statement shall be liable to compensate for the above mental damage (see Supreme Court Decision 93Da32439 delivered on February 8, 1994).

(2) According to the facts acknowledged earlier, on May 27, 2009, the defendant appeared as a witness in the official ruling of the violation of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. against the plaintiff, and thereby convicted him/her of perjury. The defendant's false statement made by the defendant as above was exposed to the danger that the plaintiff was convicted of "the crime of defamation caused by a publicly alleged fact" more severe (Article 11 of the crime of defamation caused by a publicly alleged fact). (However, as recognized earlier, the prosecution changed the indictment from "the crime of defamation caused by a publicly alleged fact" to "the crime of defamation caused by a publicly alleged fact" and the plaintiff was convicted of suffering from considerable mental distress. Thus, the defendant is obligated to suffer from the above mental distress of the plaintiff.

B. Scope of liability for damages

Furthermore, with respect to the amount of consolation money that the Defendant is liable for compensation, the Plaintiff and the Defendant filed a petition with the purport that the Defendant damaged the Defendant’s reputation by pointing out false facts. Accordingly, the Plaintiff was indicted as “crime of defamation caused by a false statement of fact,” and the Plaintiff was tried over a long period of time in the first instance trial through a formal trial request in order to challenge whether the Plaintiff’s alleged facts are false. Ultimately, the indictment was modified to “crime of defamation caused by a statement of fact,” the contents of the Defendant’s perjury, the circumstances leading up to the Defendant’s perjury, and the result of the Defendant’s criminal trial against the Plaintiff, etc., shall be determined as consolation money to be paid to the Plaintiff.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, with respect to damages caused by medical malpractice and perjury, the defendant totaling KRW 8,296,652 (= KRW 7,296,652 for damages caused by medical negligence + KRW 5,296,652 for damages + KRW 1,000 for damages caused by perjury] as well as KRW 7,296,652 for KRW 7,652 for the defendant's medical negligence, which is the date of tort, from May 8, 2008 to May 27, 2009, which is the date of tort of the defendant's above perjury, it is reasonable to dispute over the existence and scope of the defendant's obligation to perform as to the defendant's obligation to perform, and as such, the plaintiff's claim for damages from September 21, 201 to September 21, 201, which is the date of the judgment of the court of first instance, shall be accepted as the plaintiff's claim for damages for delay within the scope of 20% of the judgment of this case.

Judges Hong-chul (Presiding Judge)

Note 1) It is a special prescription feed that melts urinep from approximately 5.8 to 6.2 to marizing it into a sarbrupt.

Note 2) The special prescription feed preventing the formation of space absence by converting the urinepp into approximately approximately 6.2 to 6.4.4.

3) The number of months from May 8, 2008, the initial date of the damages for delay, to August 25, 2012, the date of the next medical treatment expenses for the first time (Provided, That any less than a month shall be dumped; hereinafter the same shall apply).

Note 4) The amount of less than KRW 4 is but not more than

5) The number of months from May 8, 2008 until August 25, 2013, the date of next treatment expenses twice from May 8, 2008

Note 6) The number of months from May 8, 2008 until August 25, 2014, which is three times of future treatment expenses.

7) The number of months from May 8, 2008 until August 25, 2015, the four-time disbursement date for future treatment expenses, from May 8, 2008.

Note 8) 1,147,740 ±3 (The future treatment costs corresponding to the portion of 4 months).

9) The number of months from May 8, 2008 to December 25, 2015, the five-time disbursement date for future treatment expenses.

10) A person who defames another person by divulging openly facts through an information and communications network with intent to defame a person under Article 70(1) of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. shall be punished by imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not more than three years or by a fine not exceeding twenty million

11) A person who defames another person by divulging openly false information through an information and communications network with intent to defame a person under Article 70(2) of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than seven years, suspension of qualifications for not more than ten years, or a fine not exceeding 50 million won