본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
서울고등법원 2019.08.28 2019나2003385

구상금

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the court of first instance.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of this part of the judgment by this court is as follows: (a) the reasoning of the judgment by this court is that “Defendant B” and “Defendant C” in Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act are used as “Co-Defendant C” and “Defendant C” in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance; and (b) it is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment.

2. Examining the Defendant’s assertion regarding the appropriate period of hospitalization as to the details of each of the hospitalized treatment indicated in the annexed table among the Defendant’s contents of each of the instant hospitalized treatment, the number of days of hospitalization is not all the appropriate period of hospitalization. Serial 13, 20, 21, 36, 37 is not all the number of days of hospitalization, and only 7 days out of 42 days of hospitalization, 30, 30, 31, 10 days out of 19 days of hospitalization, and 34 days out of 43 days of hospitalization, respectively, is an appropriate period of hospitalization.

The Defendant received total of KRW 15,910,000 as stated in the attached Table as insurance money from the Plaintiff after he received unnecessary hospitalized treatment or unfairly received hospitalized treatment for a long time exceeding the reasonable period of hospitalization, even though there is no need for hospitalized treatment. As such, the Defendant ought to return to the Plaintiff the above KRW 15,910,000 as unjust enrichment, and damages for delay thereof.

3. Determination

A. According to the result of the request for appraisal of medical records by the court of first instance for U.S. (hereinafter “the result of the request for appraisal of this case”), the appraiser determined that the contents of each hospital treatment as stated in the attached Table Nos. 20, 21, 36, 37 were not all the adequate duration of hospitalization, but only seven days out of 42 days of hospitalization, 30, 30, 31 up to 24 days of hospitalization, 10 days out of 19 days of hospitalization, and 34 days out of 43 days of hospitalization, and 7 days out of 43 days of hospitalization.

B. However, the following facts and circumstances are acknowledged in full view of the entries in Eul evidence Nos. 2 through 6, 9 through 28 (including paper numbers), the fact-finding results with respect to the regional headquarters of the National Health Insurance Corporation of the first instance court, and the results of the instant commission of appraisal and the purport of the entire arguments.

1. The defendant is a fall accident among water play around August 27, 2009.