logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.12.13 2019나33981
구상금
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) the Plaintiff added the following contents at the end of the fifth 19th son of the judgment of the first instance; and (b) the Plaintiff added the following 2. additional determination as to the assertion added in the trial of the first instance, as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance; and (c) thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 4

According to each description of the evidence of Nos. 1 through 16 (including a branch number), and witness L of the first instance court, the defendant had nursing workers subscribe to a professional injury liability insurance, and introduced the nursing workers to the insured hospital, and the nursing workers have raised complaints from the nursing expenses to the insurance premium, and the tax authorities notified the defendant to additionally collect the income tax on the supply of the service. The defendant issued a written contract for the medical care of the nursing workers in consultation with the insured hospital and issued a written contract for the medical care of the nursing workers in February 2014 and introduced them to the nursing workers on the part of February 2014. Since the nursing workers are unable to pay the nursing expenses directly to the nursing workers employed by the sick or medical personnel, the defendant did not receive any other expenses than the nursing fees from the nursing workers, and the defendant cannot be viewed as the employer's liability, considering the fact that the nursing workers did not have any human and physical facilities from the insured workers.

2. Additional determination

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant, who entered into an insured hospital and nursing service contract with the Plaintiff, provided thorough education to the nursing service for the prevention of the patients’ accidents.

arrow