In a case where newborns who were in a postnatal care center continued to work in a postnatal care center until a determination of the probability of pulmonary tuberculosis is made, despite the fact that the nursing nurse Eul visited the care center in charge of the management of women and newborn babies in a postnatal care center operated by Gap corporation was confirmed to have been infected with tuberculosis, the case holding that Eul and Eul are liable for damages to newborns and their parents for non-performance of obligations for the newborns and newborns infected with the chronic tuberculosis and their parents who remain in a postnatal care center after the date of the first examination and were in charge of the first examination to prevent infection or infection, in a case where the first examination showed that the first examination results from the first examination that the newborns who were in a postnatal care center until the date of the first examination was determined to have been found to have been infected with latent tuberculosis or to prevent infection; and furthermore, Eul and Eul are liable for damages for non-performance of obligations for them, respectively.

In a case where newborns who were in a postnatal care center continued to work in a postnatal care center until a determination of the probability of pulmonary tuberculosis is made or have been made, after considering the explanation that she is doubtful of tuberculosis, and after considering the explanation that she should conduct a her first examination, she recognized the possibility of her infection by obtaining a prescription of the first examination, and that she is liable for damages to prevent her infection because she knew that she might have been infected by tuberculosis, which is in charge of the management of her mother and her newborn baby in a postnatal care center, the company should immediately suspend her duties and, until it is confirmed that she is not infected by tuberculosis as a result of the first examination, she is responsible for preventing her infection by taking care of her parents from being infected by her first examination, and then she is negligent by failing to perform her duties to prevent her infection by taking care of her newborns and newborns from being infected by her first examination.

Articles 390, 751, and 756 of the Civil Act

See Attached Table 1 (Law Firm LLC, Attorneys Lee Sung-sung et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 200Na14488 delivered on August 1, 200

December 20, 2017

1. A. Defendant Co., Ltd. and Dokdong-si shall pay each of the Plaintiffs Nos. 4,00,000, 24 through 74, and 77, respectively, 500,000, 81 through 124, respectively, to the Plaintiffs respectively, 300,000, 127 through 134, 137 through 186, 189 through 192, 195 through 218, 223, and 224, 30, 125, and 126, 80,000, 135, 136, 187, 188, and 124, to each of the Plaintiffs’ 30,000,000,000, 125, 126, 136, 187, and 180,000,0000 won to each of the Plaintiffs’ 1.

B. Defendant 3, in collaboration with Defendant Dakdong Corporation, shall pay each of the plaintiffs listed in attached Table 9 through 14, 19, 20, 23 through 74, 77, 97 through 108, 117 through 120, 125 through 218, 223, and 224 of the plaintiffs listed in attached Table 1.

2. Each claim against the plaintiffs against the defendant 2, Nos. 75, 76, 78 through 80, 219 through 222, 225 through 230, each claim against the plaintiffs against the defendant corporation and the defendant corporation, No. 1 through 8, 15 through 18, 21, 22, 81 through 96, 109 through 116, 121 through 124, 9 through 14, 20, 23 through 74, 77, 97 through 108, 117 through 120, 125 through 223, 224, and the remaining claims against the defendant corporation and the defendant corporation were dismissed, 1 through 14, 121 through 18, 24, 224 and 24, 1 through 14, 181 through 124, 125 through 18, 216

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the plaintiffs and the defendant 2 shall be borne by the plaintiffs, and the part arising between the plaintiffs and the defendant 2 shall be borne by the above plaintiffs from Nos. 75, 76, 78 through 80, 219 through 222, 225 through 230, and between the defendant and the defendant 3, and the part arising between the plaintiffs from No. 1 through 74, 77, 81 through 218, 223, 224, and between the defendant 1 and the defendant 3 shall be borne by the above plaintiffs, and the remaining part shall be borne by the above defendants, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The Defendants jointly pay to the Plaintiffs respectively KRW 8,00,000, KRW 3,000,000, and KRW 81 through 80, respectively, to the Plaintiffs respectively, respectively, KRW 4,000,000, KRW 81 through 126, respectively, and KRW 1,50,000 to each Plaintiffs respectively, and KRW 1,50,00,000 from August 24, 2015 to the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and KRW 15% per annum from the following day to the day of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. Status of the parties

1) Defendant Co., Ltd. and Dongdong Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”) are the companies operating a postnatal care center in the trade name of “○○○○ Postnatal Care Center”, and Defendant 2 is the representative director of Defendant Co., Ltd., and Defendant 3 is the assistant nurse in charge of the management of women and newborns at the ○○○○○○ ○○ △△ △ △ dong Branch (hereinafter “instant Postnatal Care Center”).

2) The Plaintiffs Nos. 1 through 80 listed in the Plaintiffs’ list 1 to 80 (hereinafter “Plaintiff Newborns”) are newborns admitted to the instant postnatal care center, and the Plaintiffs Nos. 81 through 230 listed above (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s parents”) are the parents of Plaintiff Newborns.

B. The plaintiffs' use of the postnatal care center of this case

1) The Plaintiff’s parents concluded a contract to use a postnatal care center with the Defendant Company from May 21, 2015 to August 18, 2015, and both the Plaintiff’s parents and the newborn babies stayed in the postnatal care center of this case, as indicated in the “entry Period” column of the attached Table 2 attached hereto.

2) The content of the standard terms and conditions of a postnatal care center (Article 10070, October 25, 2013, the Fair Trade Commission’s standard terms and conditions of a postnatal care center) included in the instant license agreement is as follows.

Article 10 (1) of the table included in the main text, shall keep a health register and record and manage the health conditions of women in childbed and newborn baby, and take necessary measures, such as disinfection, to prevent infections or diseases. Article 12 (1) 1 of the table shall compensate for such damages if a loss occurs due to infections during the period of entry into a medical institution. (2) If a user presents objective data, such as a medical certificate issued by a medical institution, a receipt of medical expenses, etc., to the business operator, he/she shall compensate for the damages incurred by the user: Provided, That this shall not apply if the business operator proves that there is no intention or negligence on the part of the business operator or his/her employee.

C. Progress of treatment and determination of tuberculosis by Defendant 3

1) From April 9, 2015 to April 20, 2015, Defendant 3 was hospitalized in the Gangwon Northern Hospital and discharged from the hospital through pharmacologic treatment.

2) On June 29, 2015, Defendant 3 received an external surgery from the Gangnamsung Hospital on July 2, 2015, and was hospitalized on July 2, 2015, and received an external surgery on the same day, and Defendant 3 received an external surgery from the pulmonary internal medicine doctor on the same day. As a result of the CT examination on June 23, 2015, Defendant 3 confirmed that the pulmonary surgery was destroyed on the part of the emergency, and it was doubtful that the pulmonary infection was aggravated, and there was no suspicion that the pulmonary medicine was damaged on the part of the emergency, and there was no suspicion that the pulmonary medicine was aggravated, and there was no suspicion that Defendant 3 received the pulmonary surgery to confirm the pulmonary surgery on the day of the pulmonary surgery on the date of hospitalization. Moreover, Defendant 3 did not receive the pulmonary surgery to verify the pulmonary surgery or the pulmonary surgery on the day of the pulmonary surgery.

3) On July 2, 2015, Defendant 3 was hospitalized in the Gangwon Northern Hospital to undergo a shock infection surgery, and as a result, Defendant 3’s chest X-ray test with respect to Defendant 3, Defendant 3 requested a compromise with regard to the possibility of surgery against Defendant 3 to the pulmonary patients and doctors who suspected of being suspected of being infected on the right side, and the said pulmonary organs and doctors cannot be ruled out of the possibility of NTM, and there is no problem that patients’ symptoms have an accurate correlation with the pulmonary pulmonary surgery, and the subsequent progress is observed after the surgery, and that the pulmonary test, including TBPCR for NTM test, was attempted.”

4) On July 3, 2015, Defendant 3 was diagnosed at the above hospital, under the diagnosis of the “hiverosis infection,” and was temporarily isolated in the operating room without having to have recovery rooms, and as a result of the organizational examination on the climatic organization, it was confirmed that the chronic hiver infection was confirmed as chronic hiver infection (as it is possible to be a child-care species due to tuberculosis, the said TB and NTMR inspection was recommended), and discharged on July 6, 2015.

5) After discharge on July 13, 2015, Defendant 3 visited the Repulmonary department of the Gangwon-do Hospital on July 13, 2015, Defendant 3 stated that Defendant 3 “The pulmonary surgery and the pulmonary doctor in the form of a tissue examination showed that the pulmonary surgery was discovered after the surgery, and that the pulmonary examination of the tuberculosis was conducted as if it were mentioned in the pulmonary surgery.”

6) Defendant 3 was subject to a provisional examination on tuberculosis on July 23, 2015, and the result of the crypology examination (the method of selectively observing sloaker sloaker only by sloaking tuberculosis sloaker on the sloaker) on Ghana was voiced, but the result of the cryp examination on August 19, 2015 was cultivated, and the determination of the probability of pulmonary tuberculosis was made on August 24, 2015.

7) Defendant 3, when working in the postnatal care center of this case, sent sick leave from July 2, 2015 to July 13, 2015, and was employed from July 14, 2015 to August 9, 2015, and was on leave from August 10, 2015 to August 13, 2015, and was on leave from August 14, 2015 to August 14, 2015, while serving on August 14, 2015, Defendant 3 suspended the work of the postnatal care center of this case from that time on August 19, 2015.

(d) The results of an epidemiological investigation and taking antibiotics of Plaintiff Newborns, etc.;

1) The Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention established under the Ministry of Health and Welfare: (a) deemed that there was a possibility that tuberculosis germs might have been infected to the newborn babies who had stayed in the postnatal care center of this case; and (b) conducted an epidemiological investigation of the newborn babies using the postnatal care center of this case (hereinafter referred to as the “newborns”), as indicated in the following table, and conducted an epidemiological investigation of the reaction test for the newborn babies who had been living in the postnatal care center of this case (Tubercin skin skin skin sk, and so on within 48 to 72 hours after injection within the left left part of the arms, and the combined organization of the sonn sknin skn skn skn skn skn skn skn skn skn skn skn skn skn skn skn skn skn sk skn skn skn skn skn skn s.).

The number of medical technicians subject to the table classification index contact period included in the main text is at least 10 meters in total, and at least 164 164 164 264 26 4 16 16 26 4 6.4-8.18 120 117 17 25 4.9-6 36.3 47 47 5- 47 5 - Unmedical technicians shall be included.

2) Of the Plaintiffs’ Newborns, the Plaintiffs Nos. 1 through 23 listed in [Attachment 1] list 1 to 23 were judged as a result of the examination conducted by the projected Vietnam (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s Newborns”) (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s Newborns”), and the Plaintiffs Nos. 24 through 80 were judged as a result of the said examination (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s Newborns”), and all Plaintiff’s Newborns used antibiotics as indicated in [Attachment 2] “the period for taking anti-biotics” in order to prevent infections or tuberculosis infections.

E. Criminal complaints against the Defendants and non-prosecution disposition

On the other hand, the Defendants filed a criminal charge due to a charge of occupational injury, violation of the Infectious Disease Control and Prevention Act, violation of the Mother and Child Health Act, etc., but was subject to a non-prosecution disposition on December 26, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 101, Eul evidence 1 to 15 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

The Plaintiff Newborns were infected with latent tuberculosis in the postnatal care center of this case or recovered from the risk of tuberculosis infection. The Defendants are liable for compensating the Plaintiffs for the damages that the Plaintiffs suffered as follows. As such, the Defendants are jointly obligated to jointly pay KRW 8,000,000 to the Plaintiff Newborns, KRW 3,000,000 to the Plaintiff Newborns, and KRW 4,000,000 to the parents of the Plaintiff Newborns, and KRW 1,50,000 to the parents of the Plaintiff Newborns, respectively, as consolation money for emotional distress.

A. 1) Defendant Company’s damages liability

1) As the Defendant Company concluded a postnatal care center use contract with the Plaintiff’s parents, it failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the Mother and Child Health Act and the postnatal care center, even though it manages the Plaintiff’s newborn babies in a safe state. Therefore, the Defendant Company is liable to

2) The Defendant Company, as a corporation employing Defendant 3, has a duty of care to have confirmed whether Defendant 3, who returned to the operation, was in a state of health for the newborn baby. However, Defendant 3, who knew of tuberculosis germs of Defendant 3, neglected it, or failed to confirm it, and did not discontinue the remaining duties of Defendant 3, which did not know of tuberculosis germs. Thus, Defendant 3 is liable for tort liability against the Plaintiffs under Article 750 of the Civil Act.

3) Defendant Company had Defendant 3 engage in the management work of a group of newborn babies using Defendant 3, and as seen thereafter, Defendant 3’s tort damages the Plaintiffs, and thus, Defendant 3 bears the employer’s responsibility under Article 756 of the Civil Act.

B. Defendant 2’s liability for damages

Defendant 2, as the representative director of the Defendant Company and the manager of the postnatal care center of this case, had Defendant 3 engage in the management of newborn babies, and as seen thereafter, Defendant 3’s tort damages the Plaintiffs, and thus, Defendant 2 is liable for employer liability under Article 756 of the Civil Act against the Plaintiffs.

C. Defendant 3's liability for damages

Defendant 3 is liable for tort liability under Article 750 of the Civil Act against the Plaintiffs, since Defendant 3 was aware of, or could have known, the possibility of infection with tuberculosis, but did not discontinue the management work for the newborn babies, and thereby, caused damages to the Plaintiffs.

3. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The defendants' liability for damages

1) Defendant 3’s liability for damages caused by tort

A) The main duty of a postnatal care center is to ensure that the body of a newborn baby can be restored by providing appropriate meals, physical exercise methods, etc. to the newborn baby admitted, and to assist the newborn baby to concentrate on the postnatal care. However, the group management of the newborn baby and the newborn baby is inevitably incidental to the provision of the postnatal care service. The group management of the newborn baby is not an act of treatment, but an act of treatment for the newborn baby who is weak, but whose contact with others is not desirable due to immunity, and thus increases the risk to the life and body caused by infection of the disease, and has the characteristics of health field as a person responsible for the group management of the newborn baby, unlike the work of the postnatal care provided by the general public, has a higher level of knowledge about the health care or symptoms of the newborn baby, and thus, it is difficult for the newborn baby to take appropriate measures such as exemption from infection, such as reduction of the health condition of the newborn baby, etc., for him/her, even before it is found to have been infected by his/her own duty of care (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 106Do17.

B) The above facts and evidence, especially Gap evidence 14, Eul 6, 7, and 14, added the overall arguments, and the following facts and circumstances, i.e., defendant 3 directly work for the newborn babies in the postnatal care center of this case, and defendant 3 was found to have no possibility of pulmonary tuberculosis surgery until 2015, which was conducted on June 23, 2015, and was found to have no possibility of pulmonary tuberculosis infection surgery, as the result of 20th of the 2nd of the 5th of the 5th of the 1st of the 5th of the 5th of the 5th of the 5th of the 1st of the 5th of the 5th of the 1st of the 5th of the 1st of the 5th of the 5th of the 1st of the 1st of the 5th of the 1st of the 1st of the 3th of the 1st of the 2nd of the 3th of the 5th of the 2th of the 3th of the 5th of the 2th of the 3th of the th of the 3th of the oral tuberculosis.

C) However, according to the above facts, Defendant 3 continued to perform the above duties before being hospitalized in order to undergo a shockitis surgery, without suspending his/her duties to care for a newborn baby in the instant postnatal care center after June 29, 2015. From July 14, 2015 to August 9, 2015, and from August 14, 2015 to August 19, 2015, Defendant 3 continued to work for a period from August 14, 2015 to August 19, 2015. Defendant 3 was a person who manages a newborn baby in a postnatal care center and was negligent in performing duties to prevent or minimize the risk of infection for a newborn baby (On the other hand, even if comprehensive evidence mentioned above, Defendant 3 did not have any other evidence to acknowledge it as negligence before June 29, 2015).

D) Accordingly, Defendant 3 is liable to compensate the damages suffered by the Plaintiff’s Newborns (Annex 9 through 14, 19, 20, 23 through 74, and 77) and the parents of the said Plaintiff’s Newborns (No. 97 through 108, 117 through 120, 125 through 218, 223, and 224) in the postnatal care center of this case after June 29, 2015 by the foregoing negligence.

2) The defendant company's liability for damages

A) According to the above facts, the defendant company could be found to have been engaged in the management of the newborn baby group of the postnatal care center of this case by using the defendant 3. Meanwhile, since June 29, 2015, the defendant 3 was negligent in performing his duty of care for the plaintiffs' newborn baby in the postnatal care center of this case. Thus, the defendant company is liable for damages to the plaintiffs as the employer of the defendant 3 pursuant to Article 756(1) of the Civil Act, who is the above plaintiffs' newborn baby (Attached No. 97 through 108, 117 through 120, 125 through 218, 223, 2244, and 224) and the parents of the above plaintiffs' newborn baby (Attached No. 1 plaintiffs No. 97 to 108, 117 through 208, 125 through 218, 2223 and 224).

B) Furthermore, in light of the fact that the Defendant Company was aware of the fact that it exceeded the employer’s responsibilities as seen earlier, before June 29, 2015, the Defendant Company knew of the Plaintiff’s newborn baby’s 1 through 8, 15 through 18, 21, 22, 75, 76, 78, and 80) and the parents of the said Plaintiff’s newborn baby (the same No. 81 through 96, 109 through 116, 121 through 224, 225, 225, and 230, the Defendant Company’s 2.3 was not in charge of the Defendant Company’s disease treatment before the date on which the Defendant Company knew of the fact that it was not in charge of the Defendant Company’s 1’s disease treatment before the date on which the Defendant Company was in charge of the Defendant Company’s 25th, 2015.

3) Defendant 2’s employer liability

The plaintiffs claim that defendant 2 is liable for the employer under Article 756 of the Civil Act on the premise that the defendant 2 is the person supervising the business affairs of the defendant 3 on behalf of the employer or the employer. However, as seen above, the defendant 3's employer is the defendant company, and the defendant 2, the representative director of the defendant company, cannot be viewed as the defendant 3's employer, and the "person supervising the business affairs in lieu of the employer" refers to the person who actually supervises the specific business affairs in lieu of the employer, and the evidence submitted by the plaintiffs is insufficient to recognize that the defendant 2 was in the actual supervision of the business affairs in lieu of the defendant company that is the employer, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise. Thus, the plaintiffs' claim against the defendant 2 is without merit.

B. Liability for nonperformance by the Defendant Company

Before June 29, 2015, the Defendant Company’s default liability for the Plaintiff’s newborn babies (Annex 1 through 8, 15 through 18, 21, 22, 75, 76, 78 through 80) and the parents of the said newborn babies (the Plaintiffs No. 81 through 96, 109 through 116, 121 through 124, 219 through 222, 225, 230) is considered to be applicable to the instant postnatal care center (On the other hand, Article 15-15(1) of the Mother and Child Health Act provides that “Where a postnatal care center causes damage to its users due to infection, etc. caused by the use thereof, a postnatal care center is liable for damages to the said newborn’s infection due to the use thereof, etc., and thus, the said provision provides that the Plaintiff’s parents and the said newborn were not liable for damages to the said newborn’s non-performance of a postnatal care center prior to 25.

1) The facts stated in the terms and conditions of a postnatal care center concluded between the Plaintiff’s parents and the Defendant company that “if any damage is caused to infectious disease during the period of infection, the business entity shall compensate for such damage” (Article 12(1) of the standard terms and conditions of a postnatal care center) are as seen earlier. According to the standard terms and conditions of the oral argument in addition to the overall purport of the evidence mentioned above, in case of a newborn baby who vaccinated BCG (BCG) vaccination, the size of the minor resolution is more than 10 meters from the Megetian examination. After the diagnosis of the pulmonary Tuberculosis of Defendant 3, it is reasonable for the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to determine that the 6th infection infection of the instant postnatal care center had been infected with the 10m or more in case of the newborn baby, and that the 10m more of the above standard terms and conditions of a new tuberculosis care center was found to have been infected with the above 10m more than the 6m more than the above standard of a new tuberculosis infection examination.

2) Accordingly, Defendant Company is liable to compensate for damages caused by infection of latent tuberculosis to the newborn babies (Attached 81 through 96, 109 through 116, 121 through 124, listed in the list of Plaintiffs 1 through 8, 76, 78 through 80, 21, and 22) who were staying in the postnatal care center before June 29, 2015 and infected with locked tuberculosis by Defendant 3 and the parents of the said newborn babies (the Plaintiffs No. 81 through 96, 109 through 116, 121 through 124) (In conclusion, it is difficult to recognize the Plaintiffs’ liability for damages against Defendant Company or Defendant Company’s tort as asserted by the aforementioned Plaintiffs against the newborn babies who were discharged from the postnatal care center of this case before June 29, 2015 (the Plaintiffs No. 1 Plaintiffs No. 75, 76, 78 through 80 and their parents).

3) Meanwhile, since the proviso of Article 12(2) of the Standard Terms and Conditions for Postnatal Care Center provides that “if a business operator proves that there is no intention or negligence, damage shall not be compensated,” the Defendant Company may be exempted from liability for the infection of the Plaintiff, and the overall purport of the arguments as seen earlier may be added to the following circumstances: (i) Defendant 3, who performed duties to care for a newborn baby in the Postnatal Care Center, knew of the possibility of infection of his own tuberculosis as he was issued with a prescription that he would be suspected of being infected with tuberculosis at the Postnatal Care Center; (ii) he continued to work in the Postnatal Care Center, even though he was required to immediately suspend his duties; and (iii) it is found that some of the newborn babies contacted with Defendant 3 were infected with latent tuberculosis; and (iv) the Defendant Company should provide thorough education on how to cope with the infection infection of the Plaintiff’s children who are vulnerable to infection in group; and (iii) in light of the above, there is no evidence to prove that there is no negligence on the Plaintiff’s infection.

(c)the occurrence of damage and causation;

피고 3의 폐결핵 확진으로 질병관리본부가 이 사건 산후조리원에 대해서 역학조사를 한 결과 조사대상 신생아 180명 중 164명에 대한 투베르쿨린 검사 등을 통하여 그중 30명이 잠복결핵 감염으로 확인되어 그에 포함된 원고 양성 신생아들이 별지2 ‘항생제복용기간’란 기재와 같이 항생제를 복용한 사실 및 원고 양성 신생아들이 피고 3으로부터 잠복결핵에 감염되었다고 인정되는 사실은 앞서 본 바와 같고, 앞서 든 증거에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하여 알 수 있는 다음 사정, 즉 2015년 국가결핵관리지침에 따르면 활동성 결핵환자와 접촉력이 있는 신생아의 경우 투베르쿨린 검사 결과가 음성이라 하더라도 3개월간 항생제 INH(1차 항결핵제의 상품명) 10mg/kg으로 치료하고 그 후 다시 투베르쿨린 검사를 하여 음성이면 INH 투여를 중단하도록 되어 있어 원고 음성 신생아들 또한 위와 같이 항생제를 복용한 점, 항생제는 치료 초기에 약복용 후 수시간 정도 속이 불편하거나 메슥거리는 증상이 있을 수 있고, 위장장애가 발생할 수 있으며, 드물게 독성 간염을 초래하기도 하는 점 등을 종합하여 볼 때, 원고 신생아들은 잠복결핵 감염으로 인하여, 그렇지 않다 하더라도 결핵 보균자와의 접촉으로 인하여 모두 장기간 항생제를 복용하는 피해를 입었다고 할 것인바, 별지1 원고들 목록 순번 1 내지 74, 77번 원고들 및 위 원고들의 부모인 같은 순번 81 내지 218, 223, 224번 원고들이 입은 위 피해는 피고 3의 결핵 보균 상태에서의 근무로 인하여 초래된 것이라고 할 것이어서 결국 앞서 본 피고 3의 주의의무위반 내지 피고 회사의 채무불이행과 위 각 원고 신생아들이 입은 손해 사이에는 상당인과관계가 있다고 인정된다.

4. Scope of liability for damages

A. According to the above facts, even if the plaintiffs, Nos. 1 through 74, 77 of the plaintiffs' list 1 to 74, and 77 were infected with diving tuberculosis, or did not so, the plaintiffs, who were newborns, were suffering from mental suffering, and further, the plaintiffs, Nos. 81 through 218, 223, and 224, which are the parents of the above plaintiffs, who are newborns, are also suffering from mental suffering. Thus, as acknowledged earlier, the defendant 3 is liable to compensate for tort, based on the tort liability, each of the above plaintiffs, based on the defendant 3's employer's responsibility or default liability.

B. Furthermore, the amount of consolation money is determined as KRW 4,00,000 each of the newborn babies infected with locked Tuberculosis, in consideration of all the circumstances shown in the arguments in the instant case, such as the health team, the background leading up to the infections of the Plaintiff Newborns or antibiotics, the period of antibioticsing, the age and family relationship of the Plaintiff Newborns, etc., and the parents thereof, and was not infected with 10,000,000 respectively, and 2,000,000,000,000,000 for each of the instant postnatal care center after June 29, 2015, and it is determined as follows by the Plaintiff.

1) Newborns Fostering the Plaintiff (Annex 1 to 23): Each 4,000,000 won.

Parents of the above plaintiffs (the plaintiffs No. 81 through 126) : 500,000 won, respectively.

2) From among the Plaintiff’s voice newborns, Plaintiff 2,00,000 won in each of the instant postnatal care centers since June 29, 2015 (the Plaintiffs No. 24 through 74, and 77)

The parents of the above plaintiffs newborns (No. 125 through 218, 223, 224): 300,000 won, respectively.

[The plaintiffs No. 125, 126 are the parents of Plaintiff Newborns No. 23,24 of the same number, and each of them is 800,000 won (=50,000 won + 300,000 won). The plaintiffs of 135, and 136 of the same number are the parents of Newborns No. 29,30, and 187, and 188 of the same number as the plaintiffs of 56,57, and 188 of the same number, respectively, and each of them is 60,000 won (=30,000 won + 30,000 won + 30,000 won). The plaintiffs of 193, and 194 are the parents of the same No. 60 or 622, and each of them is a total of 900,000 won (=300,300 won + 3000 won).

C. Therefore, Defendant Company has the above 4,00,00 won to the Plaintiffs Nos. 1 through 23, 24 through 74, and 77, respectively, 50,000 won to each Plaintiffs respectively, and 127 through 134, 137 through 186, 189 through 192, 195 through 218, 224, 30, 125, 126, 126, 20, 200 to each of the above 27, 30, 125, 126, 136, 187, 188, 200, 300, 3000, 126, 126, 136, 187, and 188, 200, 300, 193, and 194, respectively, to each of the above Plaintiffs.

5. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiffs' respective claims against the defendant company Nos. 9 through 14, 19, 20, 23 through 74, 77, 97 through 108, 117 through 120, 125 through 218, 223, 224, the plaintiffs' respective claims against the defendant company, 3, 1 through 8, 15 through 18, 21, 22, 81 through 96, 109 through 116, 121 through 124, 21 through 97, 19 through 27, 29 through 147, 201, 29 through 147, 27, 19 through 147, 25, 201 to 27, 19 through 230, 2225 through 230, 121 through 18, 214, 214 through 17, 16.

Judges Man-hee (Presiding Judge)

Note 1) Each liability of the Defendant Company is selectively related.