2012 Ghana 22250 Medical expenses

Foundation************

Seoul

Representative Directors**

Attorney Shin Jae-chul, Counsel for the defendant-appellant*, Dong bank*, *, *, tea*, **

Attorney Lee Jin-law*

1. Kimo

Seoul

2. Kimx

Gwangju

Attorney Kimo-o

3. The deceased Kim * The △△△, a litigation assistant, Kim Jong-soo *

Gwangju

Attorney Kimo-o

June 4, 2015

July 7, 2015

1. The Plaintiff, Defendant Kim 00, and Kimx, jointly and severally, KRW 15,211,972, and Defendant Kim △△△△△△, with respect to the above Defendants, the amount of KRW 5,070,657 out of the said amount of money, and the amount of money calculated by each of 20% per annum from June 19, 2012 to May 25, 2012, Defendant Kim x, and Kim △△△△△△△ from May 25, 2012 to July 7, 2015, and from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims against the defendants are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, 2/3 is borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder is borne by the Defendants, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

Defendant Kim 00 and Kimx, jointly and severally, KRW 44,178,296, and Defendant Kim △△△△△, jointly and severally with the above Defendants.

of this case from August 1, 2014 to KRW 14,726,098, each of the above amounts, and the purport and purport of this case from August 1, 2014

5% per annum from the following day to the date of service of a copy of the application for change of the cause of the claim; and

20% interest shall be paid in 20% interest.

1. Basic facts

A. Status of the parties

Non-party * The plaintiff operated**** A* hospital (hereinafter referred to as the "Plaintiff hospital"), who received surgery and treatment, and the defendants are Kim **'s children.

B. Kim**’s surgery and treatment process (1) Kim * around 1997 at the Plaintiff’s hospital (1) hospital * was diagnosed with a woman’s stem cap, and was administered with a pharmacologic in around April 27, 201, following the Plaintiff’s cardiopulmonon test, etc. conducted in the heart of the Plaintiff hospital on April 27, 201, following the Plaintiff’s surgery and treatment. The Plaintiff’s diagnosis was determined to undergo a surgery to treat this.

(2) Kim* * was hospitalized in the chest branch of the Plaintiff hospital on May 8, 201, and the Defendant Kimo and Kimx guaranteed the Plaintiff hospital the obligation of medical expenses, such as Kim *’s hospitalization fees. (3) Kim* on May 9, 201: from around 18:18 to around 21:59 on the same day, the Plaintiff was transferred to the Plaintiff hospital at around 22:10 on the same day.

(4) After the completion of the heart operation of this case, Kim * from 00 to 22:45 on May 22, 2011, Kim 1: The plaintiff hospital's medical team was determined to conduct an operation for b3:0 on the same day, and 23: 15 to 17:0 on the same day, and 4:0 on the same day, it was difficult to conduct an operation for 3:0 on the 4th day after 6th day after 1:0 on the 4th day after 6th day after 6th day after 6th day after 6th day after 6th day after 6th day after 6th day after 1: * Kim 30 on the day after 1st day after 6th day after 4th day after 6th day after 6th day after 6th day after 6th day after 6th day after 6th day after 6th day after 6th day after 6th day after 6th day after 2011.

25. The light Kim & Kim * According to the MRI photograph on the brain of * Kim* Kim* overall chilling of brain to *

(7) Kim * After inserting the chest in this case, * was hospitalized in a middle-patient room on July 20, 2014 due to brain and kidney function caused damage to brain and kidne function, and continued to receive treatment, such as recognition, rehabilitation treatment, blood medication, etc.

31. Death due to brain death.

C. Filing a lawsuit claiming damages by the Defendants

The Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff’s medical negligence caused the death of **** this of the medical staff of the Plaintiff Hospital, and filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for compensation of 2012 Gohap15372, and the above court against the Plaintiff hospital’s negligence and liability for damages, as to the Plaintiff hospital’s medical personnel, ’the Plaintiff hospital’s medical personnel incurred from the operation of the △△ Hospital Kim ** due to administration, Kim***’s catching of the skin or was inserted into the catus of Kim **, by sufficiently grasping the size and location of the waste *** *, despite its occupational duty of care to prevent the Plaintiff from spreading the waste, ’the above administration or satching of 20 * ** 20 per cent of the death of the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff was liable for damages from 20 per cent of the death of the Plaintiff *6 per cent of the death of the Plaintiff *6 per cent of the disease and injury of the Plaintiff *6 per cent of the disease.

[Grounds for Recognition: Evidence Nos. 2, 3, 5, 8, Eul evidence No. 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings] 2. The plaintiff's assertion

Kim** The medical expenses incurred from May 8, 201 to June 6, 2011, which were hospitalized in the Plaintiff Hospital, are 27,989, and 166. If the Defendants deducts KRW 975,245 exceeding the upper limit of KRW 10,000 that was already paid by the Defendants, the medical expenses unpaid by the Defendants during the above period are 17,013,921, and the medical expenses accrued from June 7, 201 to June 25, 2011 are 2,423,80 won, and 880 won, from June 26, 201 to June 31, 2014.

The medical expenses incurred are KRW 41,234,158. According to the instant final judgment, the Defendants are obligated to pay KRW 24,740,495 among them. Accordingly, Defendant Kim 00 and Kim x, who jointly and severally guaranteed the Defendant’s obligation to pay the medical expenses, shall jointly and severally pay the Plaintiff KRW 44,178,296 ( KRW 17,013,921 + KRW 2,423,880 + KRW 24,740,495), and Defendant Kim △△△△△△, jointly and severally with the aforementioned Defendants, is jointly and severally liable to pay damages for delay from August 1, 2014.

3. Determination

A. Determination as to the claim for medical expenses from May 8, 201 to June 6, 2011 (1)

In light of the above facts, it is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that medical expenses incurred during the above period were KRW 27,989,166 solely on the basis of the evidence No. 6-1, 7-1, and 2, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, according to the evidence No. 7-1, No. 7-3, and No. 7, medical expenses incurred during the above period were 26,187,217 won (the patient’s charge 4,975,245 + the patient’s charge 21,211,972 won) and the patient’s health expenses incurred during the above period were discharged from the above period. Accordingly, the Defendants asserted that the Defendants were unable to perform their duty of care due to the above 26,187,217, and 1,000,000 won for a large amount of 1,515,71).

However, it is difficult to judge that the sum of the first surgery was inappropriate in light of the symptoms of No. 3 and No. 2, namely, Kim** was in need of an operation at the time of the heart surgery, Kim ** in light of the symptoms of the present case, and that the sum of the first surgery when the first surgery was conducted is not appropriate," and that "in the case of the first surgery such as the heart surgery, large quantity of blood after the surgery is discharged," there is no opinion of appraiser, Kim * in the medical hospital after the heart surgery of this case * in the medical history of the instant case * in the medical history of the instant surgery * in the medical history of the instant case * in the medical history of the instant surgery * in the medical history of the instant case * in the medical history of the instant surgery * in the medical history of the instant case * in the medical history of the instant hospital * in the light of the lack of evidence to acknowledge the medical history of the Plaintiff 4 in the medical history of the surgery.

(B) Next, from October 201 to December 2, 201 of the same year, the Defendants asserted to the effect that the Plaintiff did not have a duty to pay medical expenses to the Plaintiff, as they acknowledged that there was an impediment to Kim** due to the Plaintiff’s medical malpractice in the Plaintiff hospital from around October 201 to the Plaintiff’s medical malpractice, and agreed to exempt the Defendants from the Defendant’s obligation to pay the medical expenses. However, it is insufficient to recognize the fact that the Plaintiff had exempted the Defendants from the total amount of the medical expenses, and there is no other evidence to support this otherwise. Therefore, the Defendants’ assertion is without merit.

B. Determination on the claim for medical expenses from June 7, 201 to June 25, 2011

The written evidence No. 4-2, 6-2, 7-3 of the evidence No. 4-2, 6-2, 7-3 alone is insufficient to recognize the fact that the medical expenses of the patient ** the medical expenses of the patient 2,423, 880 won incurred during the above period, and there is no other evidence to prove it. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for medical expenses during the above period is without merit.

C. As to the claim for medical expenses from June 26, 201 to July 31, 2014, the Plaintiff sought payment of KRW 41,234,158 to the Defendants for the aforementioned period’ medical expenses. The Defendants asserted that, since the Plaintiff hospital’s medical personnel failed to perform his/her duty of care as a good manager, the Plaintiff hospital’s medical treatment act is not based on the principal place of the medical obligation, or was performed as part of the compensation for damages after the medical accident occurred, the Plaintiff cannot claim payment of medical expenses against the Defendants.

In light of the above facts, if the doctor did not perform his/her duty of care as a good manager to treat the patient and to take necessary and appropriate measures in light of the current medical level, the bodily function of the patient was damaged and only the treatment was continued to the extent that the cure of the aftermathy or the prevention of any further aggravation after the above damage was inflicted, a doctor's treatment act is not in accordance with the medical obligation, or it was merely conducted as a part of the compensation for damage, and thus the hospital cannot charge the patient for the payment of the operation expenses or medical expenses (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da15031, Jul. 27, 1993). According to the above facts, the medical personnel of the hospital claimed that the plaintiff was negligent in causing damage to the quality of the aftermathy, ** due to mass blood transfusion and mathy Kim * * due to the increase in the volume of mathy and mathy, the plaintiff's medical personnel claimed that the plaintiff was unable to claim compensation for damages against the plaintiff 2 after the treatment of this case*.

In calculating the amount of damages in the above lawsuit between the Defendants and the Plaintiff, limiting the Plaintiff’s damage liability to 40% in consideration of the factors of the Defendant’s side is Kim***’s risk of medical history or disease, regardless of whether or not there exists any cause attributable to the Defendant, Kim**’s risk of medical history or disease, and the fact that the Plaintiff’s doctor’s negligence is not recognized in relation to the heart operation and stroke surgery prior to the instant chest inserted surgery (the same shall apply as in the above case’s chest inserted surgery from May 8, 2011 to June 6, 2011). As long as the medical treatment act of the Plaintiff hospital did not coincide with the medical treatment obligation of the Plaintiff medical personnel, the Plaintiff’s medical expenses cannot be claimed for the medical expenses under the medical contract, even if there is any part considered as a cause attributable to the Defendant in calculating the amount of damages in the lawsuit for compensation for damages, the Plaintiff’s aforementioned part cannot be asserted as a ground for appeal.

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s medical expenses, Defendant Kim 00, and Kim x, as a joint and several surety for medical expenses, are jointly and severally 15,211,972 won, and Defendant Kim △△△△△△, jointly and severally with the above Defendants, KRW 5,070,657 out of the above amount ( KRW 15,211,972 x 1/3 statutory inheritance, and less than KRW 1/3 statutory inheritance, and less than KRW 100), as of the following day after the date of the request for performance, Defendant Kim 0 was liable to pay damages for delay calculated by the Defendants from June 19, 2012, from May 25, 2012, to July 7, 2015, the date of the instant judgment, which is deemed reasonable for the Defendants to resist the existence and scope of their obligations.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Jae-tae