(영문) 서울고등법원 2015.2.12. 선고 2013나34039 판결

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant ordering payment in excess of the amount ordered under the order to pay shall be revoked and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the above revoked part shall be dismissed.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 149,486,889 won with 5% interest per annum from July 25, 2010 to February 12, 2015, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

2. The defendant's remaining appeal is dismissed.

3. Two minutes of the total costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff, and the remainder is assessed against the Defendant, respectively.

Purport of claim and appeal

1. Purport of claim

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 292,419,493 won with 5% interest per annum from July 25, 2010 to the service date of a copy of the claim of this case and the application for modification of the cause of the claim of this case, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

2. Purport of appeal

The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim against the revocation shall be dismissed.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The relationship between the parties

1) The defendant, who is a medical specialist in home department, is a doctor who jointly operates 'D Councilor' (hereinafter 'Defendant Councilor') with his spouse H in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

2) The Plaintiff received the Defendant’s medical treatment from January 15, 2004, and was under the Defendant’s medical examination on July 25, 2010, and thereafter, there was an impediment to low carbon brain damage, etc. after receiving the Defendant’s medical examination on the surface of the water from the Defendant’s Council member.

B. Conduct of an internal inspection on the surface of the water;

1) From around 2004, the Plaintiff received treatment from Defendant Council members for various diseases from Defendant I, Defendant, H, J, etc.

2) From July 6, 2010, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to perform a local transplantation surgery on his face, and on July 19, 2010, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to conduct a local transplantation surgery and an internal landscaping test at the surface of the water by means of a local transplantation test. Around that time, on July 25, 2010, the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to conduct a local transplantation surgery and an internal landscaping test at the surface of the water.

3) On July 25, 2010, the Defendant asked the Plaintiff’s medical specialists E to conduct a local transplantation surgery with respect to the Plaintiff and the internal landscaping and the internal landscaping test with respect to the Plaintiff. On July 25, 2010, E, first administered 1% professional 4 meters in the surface of the water in the state of H and nurses, etc. (hereinafter “the surface of the instant water”). However, in order to conduct a 4 meters in the surface of the water, the Plaintiff administered 8 meters in total by administering an additional professional 4 meters in the surface of the water. E maintained the administration volume for the maintenance of the water surface at 60 m/ hours, and during the examination at the surface of the Plaintiff, the early mountain spO2 (SP2) was 90-96% in the end of the Plaintiff.

4) At the time of the Plaintiff, the height was 172§¯ and the body was 81.5 kilograms.

1) During the 15 minutes of the instant land surface inspection between E, the Plaintiff discovered that the Plaintiff had the lapa influence. Accordingly, E discontinued attempted the lap influence to take emergency measures after suspending the lap test and deducting the internal light mechanism, but supplied the Plaintiff with the labu-bring (a laging).

2) On July 25, 2010, the Defendant received an emergency situation report and filed a report to the 12:31 Dobongsan 119 Safety Center Emergency Team on July 25, 2010. Around 12:48, the Defendant transferred the Plaintiff to the Korea-Japan Emergency Hospital Emergency Center using the ambulances dispatched to the Defendant Assembly Members. During the transfer, the first unit operated via an amplging amping device in the state of inserting the Plaintiff’s compulsory appearance.

(d) Transfer to an oriental medical hospital;

1) On July 25, 2010, the Plaintiff arrived at the Han-il Hospital. At the time of arrival, the Plaintiff’s food condition was her in the state of mixed-harm (sult reaction to stimulate without any awareness) and was in the state of abnormal repulmonation. The active repulmonation was made by blood pressure 200/120mm, beer 136mm Hg, beer and beer 136 times/ minutes, and the blood pressure and beer with the body temperature 36C, which was higher than normal value, and the early oxygen was 87%.

2) On July 25, 2010, the hospital of Hanil, immediately after the arrival of 12:50 on July 25, 2010, the hospital inserted the Plaintiff’s hall, supplied a high concentration oxygen, influencing the number of hydrogen, and carried out the cluorous gas test and blood test. On the same day, in the hospital of 13:05 on the same day, the Plaintiff inserted the mark of misconduct to the Plaintiff, and at the time, the Plaintiff’s early oxygen map was 99%.

3) On July 25, 2010, 13:20 Plaintiff’s active requisition was stabilized by blood pressure 160/100mm Hg, beer and beer, 104/minutes, and 16 times/minutes. 14:01 oxygen was also viewed as normal opinion. The Plaintiff was taken 14:45 brain computers on the same day, and was hospitalized in the middle patient room at Han-il Hospital (hereinafter “the instant medical accident”).

4) The Plaintiff was hospitalized in Hanil Hospital from July 25, 2010 to August 23, 2010.

E. The plaintiff's present state

The Plaintiff was hospitalized in the F Hospital from Aug. 24, 2010 to Nov. 15, 2010 after the Plaintiff was discharged from the Korea-Japan Hospital. After that, the Plaintiff was hospitalized in the National Rehabilitation Center from Sept. 2, 2010 to Nov. 15, 2010, and received treatment from Korea-Japan Hospital from Jan. 8, 201 to Mar. 13, 201. After the accident, the Plaintiff led to the decline of memory, the weakening of permanent physical force, and the symptoms for the left-hand side flaction.

(f) Relevant medical knowledge;

(i) Propool;

A) Propool is the most recently introduced Madyl phenol, which has a function similar to the pathal pental, and is an alkyl phenol.

B) A medicine description (Evidence A) on a 1% propool [50 g (50 g (50,000 g (50 g (50 g) if converted by weight)] shall determine the volume of medicine by observing the patient's reaction until clinical signs of anesthesia occur. In the case of inducing general anesthesia, 40 mar per 10 seconds for ordinary adults, 40 marcing 1.5-2.5 marcs per body for adults under 55 years of age, 1.5 marcs for adults under 55 years of age to reduce the total volume of administration (20 marc) and to adults over 555 years of age to reduce the total volume of administration, and to reduce the level of 30 marcs by reducing the level of ASA Ⅲ and 40 marcs for patients every 20 marc.

C) Also, in order to maintain general anesthesia, the above medicine description explains that the average rate of administration for adults and aged people differs depending on patients, but generally, it can maintain the state of anesthesia at a rate of 4-12 m/ hours per body.

D) There are low blood pressure, respiratory suppression, etc. due to the side effects of propool. Since there is no path to propool, elderly patients need to reduce their dosages. The heart, respiratory machine, kidne or liver damage patients should be prudented. When conducting a cardiopulmonary test by propool, doctors with expertise in cardiopulmonary resuscitation should be used in a state with equipment capable of maintaining the climate and performing cardiopulmonary resuscitation. During the test, the prosecutor must continue to observe the oxygen chart, blood pressure, and heart level.

(ii) first aid under respiratory conditions;

A) Acopic respiratory part of the respiratory part, but the respiratory part of the respiratory part causes a low oxygen, and ultimately causes brain damage and important organ damage, and causes death. Since brain low pulmonary part within 3 to 4 minutes, the pulmonary part must be given first aid under the pulmonary part as soon as possible, given that the pulmonary part of the pulmonary part does not exceed 3 to 3 to 4 minutes.

B) As a first aid for the respiratory part, ① the patient’s length should be secured first, ② the patient’s airway should be carried out by means of an ampering via an ample-baging, attaching a patient’s entrance and coke, and an artificial absorption of an amper in the shape of the block (a ampu-bag and a ample-baging device). ③ A cardiopulmonary resuscitation that pressures the patient’s chest, etc. should be carried out by using a ampering method, such as an ampering via a amper (aamp-baging, attaching a amper to the patient’s entrance and visag, and a ropphn, etc.

C) In general, when the mechanism is closed, the mechanism would normally be carried out to maintain the mechanism by inserting the tamper into the engine through the patient’s entrance or coination. The tamper’s engine can secure the mechanism by inserting the tamper into the engine through the engine, and can supply the oxygen and air to the tamper if the engine tamper, which is outside, connects the oxygen to the tamper or the artificial absorptionr connected to the tamper on the end, and provides the tamper and air to the body. The insertinger inside the patient’s body, which has performed telegraphic anesthesia, ordinarily uses the tamper and ordinarily moves into the tamper, not the engine tamper. After confirming the tamper’s tamper where the tamper is located, the engine tamper will be inserted into the engine and the engine tamper will be inserted into the body.

3) Low carbon and low carbon brain damage (hypoxic brain)

A) When an oxygen oxygen was conducted an dynamic gas analysis test (ABGA) in a state with low voltage as it is difficult to cover the pulmonary function due to difficulty, it means the cases where oxygen pressure is less than 60mm Hg or oxygen ion rate is less than 90%. In particular, oxygen proof causes a change in the area of the mid-tour boundary. In the case of acute low-carbon oxygen, it may cause symptoms such as disorder of judgment similar to acute alcohol addiction, physical disability, etc. similar to pulmonary alcohol addiction, resulting in pulmonary corrosion or brain pulmonary disorder, and eventually dies due to pulmonary difficulty.

B) On the other hand, low-carbon brain damage is a cerebral cerebral cerebral tension caused by low blood pressure or respiratory part, and is caused by cardiopulmonary pulmonary mar disorder. The specific reason is that it is an cardiopulmonary marcule, shock, and cirical marcule accompanied by cardiopulmonary typhrosis, heart stop, and cirical marcule.

(iv) coke and water surface Smoking;

A) Coke is a very scke phenomenon. However, 75% of a person who has cokekes is accompanied by a breathy in the water surface to stop pulmonary treatment. Not only by cokes but also by a breathy in the surface of the water accompanied by a breathy in the surface of the water. If the symptoms of breathy in the surface of the water are less than the middle one, a breathy in the research dog, milch, and scke.

B) A person who shows symptoms of water-free smoking shall have a pulmonary color easily at the time of inducing the surface of the body by a file. Since the deficial condition is not a deficial condition, the respiratory is not smooth by the color of the body, so it is easy to omit it into a low pulmonary disease, and it is shaking in the event that the pulmonary condition is difficult in an emergency.

[Reasons for Recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Gap evidence Nos. 15, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Eul evidence Nos. 9 through 12, Eul evidence Nos. 9 through 12 (including a branch number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the result of the court of the first instance commissioning the body of the head of the university affiliated with the university of the university of the women of the first instance court, the result of the first instance court's inquiry into the head of the Korea Medical Foundation, the head of the Gangwon Medical Foundation of the first instance court, and the chief of the Gangnam fire station, the result of the first instance court's inquiry into the body entrustment

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) At the time of the instant medical accident, the Defendant should have sufficiently assessed the Plaintiff’s age and the records of the operation of the respiratory system by taking into account the Plaintiff’s age and the respiratory system, which was 57 years old at the time of the instant medical accident, on the part of the Plaintiff, the Defendant, who violated such duty of care and did not evaluate the Plaintiff’s past medical history. However, the Defendant, without examining the Plaintiff’s past medical history, was determined to conduct

2) While the Defendant did not have the equipment, artificial smoking, and oxygen supply facilities for the maintenance of the patient’s flag, the Defendant conducted a prompt test on the surface of the instant water by using a propool to the Plaintiff without being equipped with the equipment for the maintenance of the patient’s flag, namely, the facilities for immediate resuscitation.

3) Of the instant water surface inspection, E, which had caused the Plaintiff to suffer from an in-depth satisfying symptoms, and conducted a satisfying test on the surface of the water, caused the Plaintiff to suffer from satisfying brain damage by carrying out only ampamping via a ample-outing amperinginging device. Of the satisfy test, E, among the satisfy test, failed to take appropriate measures despite that the Plaintiff’s satisfying level should have been secured promptly and supplied satisfy so as not to lower the level

4) The instant medical accident led to the Plaintiff’s decline of memory due to low oxygen brain injury and the weakening of permanent physical force and the symptoms of the left-hand marine.

5) Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to treat the Plaintiff and continuously observe and supervise the process, etc., or is obligated to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages incurred by the Plaintiff due to the negligence of the Defendant or E, as a person who actually directs and supervises the performance of E’s business to conduct a background test on the water surface of this case.

B. Defendant’s assertion

1) The Defendant confirmed that the Plaintiff had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had been

2) A person who conducts a background test on the surface of the instant water is not the Defendant, but E. The Defendant’s spouse is the operator of the Defendant’s Council member, and the Defendant is not in a de facto command and supervision relationship with the Defendant, and thus, the Defendant is not liable for the Plaintiff’

3) The Defendant Council members provided equipment, oxygens, ampample, ample, and mountain stegratulation measuring devices, etc. necessary for the inserted of an agency in an emergency. The capacity of propool administered to the Plaintiff by E was appropriate.

4) Of the instant water surface inspection, E was carried out by inserting and amping vialopging, amping the air-conditioning straws, as the Plaintiff had an in-flightd symptoms, and there is no negligence in the first aid as appropriate.

3. Determination as to the liability for damages

A. Whether there was a negligence in breach of the duty of care on the measures prior to the surface inspection of the water in the instant case

1) Generally, a doctor dealing with human life and health requires a duty of care to take the best measures necessary to prevent any danger that may be caused by a medical procedure in light of the nature of his/her duties. In particular, general anesthesia has a significant impact on the patient’s mid-to-life boundary, respiratory machine or circular machine, etc., which may cause serious side effects on the patient’s health condition, such as anesthesia or anesthesia, and the patient’s death, etc. is likely to cause serious consequences. As such, a doctor in charge of such a duty of care is required to observe the patient’s body structure and condition closely in preparation for all risks that may be caused by the whole process of anesthesia prior to performing the anesthesia procedure, and to select the most appropriate and safe method by sufficiently comparing and examining the parts and side effects of the patient’s body before performing the anesthesia procedure (see Supreme Court Decision 9Da4821, Mar. 23, 2001).

2) 위 법리를 기초로 이 사건에 관하여 살피건대, 갑 제3호증, 갑 제11 내지 14호증, 갑 제18호증, 을 제9 내지 12호증의 각 기재, 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면, ① 원고는 1998년경 연세대학교 의과대학 부속 영동세브란스병원에서 수면무호흡 증상 완화를 위하여 2차례 코골이 수술을 받았으나 증상 호전이 없었던 사실, 원고는 2008. 5. 26. 경희대학교병원에 입원하여 수면무호흡 증상 완화를 위하여 2008. 5. 27. 전신마취하에 구 개인도 성형술 및 하비갑개2) 축소술을 받았고, 그 무렵 이후 침을 흘리고 발음이 새는 증상이 발생하였으며 혀가 아프고 불편하며 입떨림과 눈떨림이 생기는 증상이 있어서 침샘의 부종 완화를 위하여 2010. 6. 30. 위 병원에 입원하여 전신마취하에 2010. 7. 1. 설하선 절제술을 받고 2010. 7. 6. 퇴원한 사실(갑 제18호증), ② 피고 의원의 의사 J은 2008. 6. 27. 피고 의원의 원고에 대한 진료기록에 원고가 2008. 5. 27. 코골이 수술을 받았다는 것을 기록한 사실, 피고는 원고를 장기간 진료해 왔는데 2010. 4. 21. 이후 원고로부터 지속적으로 혀가 아프고 불편한 '설염' 증상에 대한 호소를 들은 사실, ③ 피고는 원고가 위 '설염' 증상에 관하여 2010. 7. 1.경 수술을 받는다는 점을 2010. 6. 26.자 진료기록에 '30일 수술하러 가신다고'라고 기재한 사실, ④ 피고는 원고에 대한 2010. 7. 23.자 진료기록에 '수술경력없음-경희대혀수술이외엔??'이라고 기재한 사실, ⑤ 피고는 이 사건 의료사고에 관하여 2012. 6. 20. 수사기관에서 조사를 받을 당시 '원고의 코골이 수술 병력 및 알코올 중독 증세를 알았다면 수면내시경을 실시하지 않았거나 큰 병원으로 가시도록 권해드렸을 것'이라는 취지로 진술하는 한편 '원고는 평소에도 말투가 좀 어눌하였고 인지능력도 떨어진 상태였다'고 진술한 사실, ⑥ 피고는 이 사건 의료사고에 관하여 2013. 3. 27. 수사기관에서 조사를 받을 당시 위 '수술경력 없음-혀수술 이외엔??' 기재에 관하여 '혀에 무슨 처치를 받았다고 하는데 무슨 말인지 알아들을 수 없었고 혀를 보니 제 의학적 지식으로는 수술을 받은 것처럼 보이지 않아서 그냥 물음표만 적어 놓은 것'이라고 진술한 사실, ⑦ 수면무호흡 증상이 있는 사람들은 진정제로 수면을 유도하였을 때 쉽게 기도 폐색이 발생하고, 깊은 진정 상태가 아니어도 기도 폐색에 의해 호흡이 원활히 이루어지지 못하기 때문에 쉽게 저산소증에 빠지게 되며 해부학적으로 응급상황에서 기관 삽관이 어려운 경우가 흔한 사실 등을 인정할 수 있는바, 위 사실에 의하면, 2010. 4. 21. 이후 원고로부터 지속적으로 혀가 아프고 불편한 '설염' 증상에 대한 호소를 들었고 2010. 6. 26. 원고가 2010. 7. 1.경 수술을 받는다는 점을 진료기록에까지 기재한 피고로서는 원고의 '설염' 증상에 대하여 그 발생 경위를 문진하거나 2010. 7. 1.경 수술의 경위에 관하여 문진함으로써 또는 그러한 과정을 통하여 J이 작성한 진료기록을 확인함으로써 원고가 2008. 5. 27. 코골이 수술을 받은 병력을 충분히 알 수 있었던 것으로 보인다. 또한 원고의 주치의로서 수면내시경 검사를 의뢰받아 E으로 하여금 원고에 대한 수면내시경 검사를 담당하도록 한 피고로서는 마취 시술에 앞서 마취 시술의 전 과정을 통하여 발생할 수 있는 모든 위험에 대비하여 원고의 신체구조나 상태를 면밀히 관찰하여야 할뿐 아니라, 여러 가지 마취방법에 있어서 그 장단점과 부작용을 충분히 비교·검토하여 원고에게 가장 적절하고 안전한 방법을 선택하여야 할 주의의무가 있다 할 것인데, 2010. 6. 26. 원고가 2010. 7. 1.경 설염 증상에 관하여 수술을 받는다는 점을 들었고, 이 사건 수면내시경 검사를 실시하기 이틀 전인 2010. 7. 23. 원고로부터 '혀에 무슨 처치'를 받았다는 말을 들었으며, 평소 원고의 말투가 어눌하고 인지능력도 떨어진 상태였던 것을 알고 있었으므로, 원고의 '경희대혀수술'에 대하여 그 경위와 내용을 구체적으로 확인함으로써 코골이 수술 등 과거 병력을 정확히 조사하여 수면무호흡 증상이 있음을 확인하고 원고를 큰 병원으로 전원하거나 수면내시경 검사 도중 호흡정지 등의 응급상태를 대비하기 위한 충분한 준비를 하였어야 함에도 이를 게을리함으로써 원고를 큰 병원으로 전원하지 아니하였고 E에게 원고에 대한 수면내시경 검사의 위험성을 알리지도 아니한 잘못이 있다고 할 것이다. 피고의 위와 같은 잘못으로 말미암아 원고에게 호흡정지가 발생하였을 때 E이 충분한 준비를 하지 못한 채 바로 기관 삽관을 실시하지 못함으로써 원고에게 저산소성 뇌손상을 입게 하였다 할 것이다.

B. Whether there was a negligence in breach of the duty of care as to propool investment

1) In light of the fact that the Plaintiff undergone two-time operations at the Youngdong Hospital affiliated with the medical school affiliated with the medical school of the next generation in around 1998, the Plaintiff received the crymosis and the crym sym sym sym sym sym sym sym sym sym sym sym sym sym sym sym sym sym sym sym sym ssym sym sym sym sym s

2) Meanwhile, considering the following circumstances, Gap evidence 3 and Gap evidence 8, and the overall purport of oral argument, i.e., 60 cubic spool medication per hour at 80 kilograms, thrh 80 kilograms can increase rapidly due to patient condition, personal sensitive level, drinking, smoking, etc., and E administered 40 mpool per hour to the plaintiff through a water tank supply system at 60 mposc 40 mposc 60 mposc 80 mposc 60 mposc 80 mposc 80 mposc 80 mposc 5 mposc 80 mposc 80 mposc 8 mposc 25 mposc mposc 80 mposc 80 mposc 5% mposc mposc

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

C. Whether there was a negligence in breach of the duty of care as to the first aid after the occurrence of the instant accident and the process of conducting a safety examination on the water surface.

1) In order for a patient to be held liable for tort due to breach of the duty of care in medical practice or for nonperformance, the existence of causation between the violation of the duty of care in medical practice and the occurrence of damages should be premised. However, the medical practice requires highly specialized knowledge. The process of the medical treatment is limited to the patient himself/herself at the discretion of the doctor, as well as the patient himself/herself can be aware of a part of his/her medical practice, and the method of the medical treatment to achieve the result of treatment depends on his/her own discretion. Therefore, whether the direct cause of damages is attributable to the medical negligence is difficult to prove that the patient is an ordinary person who is not an expert, and it is extremely difficult for the patient to prove that the causal link between the patient’s breach of the duty of care in medical practice and the occurrence of damages is medically complete. However, in the case of a patient who died during the medical treatment process, it is extremely difficult for the patient to prove that the patient was not liable for damages due to the patient’s fault at least 90 in the process of a series of medical practice at the victim.

2) Based on the above legal principles, if we consider the above facts as a whole and consider the following circumstances, namely, e.g., e., ampurine for general first aid, ampurine for medical treatment, ampurine inserted in the engine and oxygen oxygen measurement equipment, etc., the defendant's member is equipped with equipment, oxygen, ampurine, ampurine, ampurine, and oxygen oxygen measurement equipment, etc. to the plaintiff at the time of emergency, it can be deemed that E conducted pulmonary inspections at the time of emergency without any pulmonary equipment, etc., under the condition that the plaintiff can not be seen as being equipped with pulmonary equipment at the time of emergency. However, it can be seen that it is difficult for the plaintiff to have performed pulmonary equipment without any pulmonary equipment if pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary m.

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, the defendant is liable for all damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the medical accident of this case.

E. Limitation of liability

However, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the above evidence and the overall purport of the pleading, are as follows, even if normal treatment takes place due to inevitable side effects of propool, propool is frequently being conducted by a WIG competition prosecutor using it on the ground of rapid surface effects, patient satisfaction level, etc., and E is also a failure to take into account various circumstances occurring during the argument of this case, such as the fact that the defendant was promptly and promptly taking emergency measures, etc., but it is reasonable to take into account when calculating the amount of damages that the defendant should compensate for to the plaintiffs. In light of the facts acknowledged above, it is reasonable to view that the limitation of liability ratio exceeds 50% in light of the aforementioned facts, the defendant's liability is limited to 50%.

4. Scope of damages.

(a) Actual profits;

In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence No. 7 and the result of the first instance court's entrustment of physical examinations to the heads of Gicheon-do Hospital affiliated with the university of Egyman University and the president of the first instance court, based on the facts of recognition and the contents of the evaluation under Paragraph (1) below, which are recognized based on the results of physical entrustment to the heads of Egyman University and Seoul Hospital and the overall purport of the arguments, as follows: (2) 25,276,614 won, as described in Paragraph (2) shall be calculated at the present price as of the date of the accident in this case by deducting the plaintiff from the method of an intermediate interest at the rate of 5/12% per month, based on the method of calculating the amount of lost income to be incurred by the accident in this case, based on the facts of recognition and evaluation under Paragraph (1) below.

(i) the facts of recognition and evaluation;

(a) Gender and date of birth: Males, Girs;

B) Age at the time of the instant accident: 57 years of age and 8 months;

C) It is presumed that the life expectancy is alive until February 4, 203, 203: (a) the Plaintiff asserts that the life expectancy is 21 years based on the result of physical examination commissioned by the court of first instance as to the head of the Giman National University affiliated with the Giman National University (Seoul National University). However, according to the above physical examination entrusted, the average life expectancy is deemed not to have an impact on the average life expectancy, and the present age standard is 21 years, and the remaining life expectancy is stated as 21 years in the current age standard. The Plaintiff’s life expectancy appears to have been mentioned as 60 years in the age of 60 as of the date of 2011 as of the Plaintiff’s Korean age of 60 years and 21.40 years in the life expectancy as of the date of appraisal, and the above physical examination result seems to have no influence on the Plaintiff’s life expectancy as of the above physical examination result. Thus, the Plaintiff’s life expectancy is reasonable to recognize the Plaintiff’s claim for damages within 25 years and 15 years in the above.

D) Maximum working age: Until November 7, 2012, on which the 60-year-old seal is affixed.

E) Occupation, income, and operating period: The Plaintiff does not have any material to know the actual amount of the Plaintiff’s income. As such, the Plaintiff is deemed to be able to obtain the income of an ordinary worker on the investigation report on the actual amount of construction business wage published by the Korea Construction Association at least daily wage for each corresponding period of each of the following table (the Defendant asserts that there is no profit of the Plaintiff due to the Plaintiff’s basic living recipient, but the person asserts that there is no profit of the Plaintiff; however, barring any special circumstance to deem that there is no future income, it can be deemed that the Plaintiff would obtain the income of the ordinary wage according to gender and age if he/she is an adult (see Supreme Court Decision 66Da1504, Nov. 12, 196), and there is no material to acknowledge that the Plaintiff would not have any income in the future (see Supreme Court Decision 66Da1504, Nov. 12, 196).

(f)the ratio of injury to the latter and labor capacity;

(1) The rate of loss of labor capacity during the period of hospitalization: From July 25, 2010, the Plaintiff was hospitalized in Hanil Hospital, F Hospital, and National Rehabilitation Center Hospital and discharged the Plaintiff on November 15, 2010. The Plaintiff thereafter was hospitalized in Hanil Hospital and received treatment from January 8, 201 to January 13, 201, thereby recognizing the loss of labor capacity of 100% during that period.

(2) The labor disability rate after the period of hospitalized treatment: The Plaintiff is able to permanently lose 58% labor capacity by falling under 1X-B-3-5 on the evaluation table of the loss of Mabrid labor capacity due to the reduction of memory, the weakening of permanent movement ability, and the left-hand paralysis due to the impairment of low carbon brain after the instant case (However, the amount of damages shall be calculated according to the labor disability ratio of 56% asserted by the Plaintiff within the said scope).

2) Calculation: 25,276,614 won (attached Form No. 25,767,261, as stated in the Statement of Calculation of the Amount of Damages, and 25,276,614 won claimed by the Plaintiff within the scope thereof)

(b) Medical expenses;

1. Expenses for medical treatment: 1,048,470 won;

In full view of the statement in Gap evidence No. 7 and the purport of the entire argument, the plaintiff is recognized to have spent the medical expenses of KRW 1,048,470 in total due to the accident of this case.

(b) Future treatment costs: 36,674,849 won;

In full view of the results of physical examination commissioned by the court of first instance to the heads of Egymnasium annexed to the Gecheon National University and Seoul Hospital and the results of physical examination commissioned by the court of first instance to the heads of Egymnasium and the purport of the entire arguments, the Plaintiff shall be deemed to have provided rehabilitation treatment for ten years from June 26, 2014 to June 25, 2024, which is the date of the written appraisal of the entrustment of physical examination to the heads of Egymnasium Seoul Hospital hospitals of this court, three times a week, and 3,416,400 won per annum [21,90 won per week] 】 52 weeks (one year and 52 weeks per week) 】 1,095,00 won per annum, and the amount of damages for the first time after the completion of oral examination and treatment x 365 days per annum.

(a) Rehabilitation treatment costs: 23,367,971 won (attached Form 23,864,920 won, such as the entry in the List of Compensation Calculation of Damages) and 23,367,971 won claimed by the Plaintiff within the scope of the same.

(b) Medicines expenses: 13,306,878 won;

C) Aggregate: 36,674,849 won (=23,367,971 won + 13,306,878 won)

3) Assistants: 5,115,230 won (=3,880,950 won + 1,234,280 won)

In full view of the results of the physical examination entrusted to the heads of Gicheon National University and the results of the physical examination entrusted to the heads of Gicheon National University and Seoul National Hospital and the purport of the entire arguments in this court, the plaintiff needs special wheelchairs (1,500,000 won, 5 years within the inner period) and walking aids (200,000 won, and 2 years within the inner period) as auxiliary equipment. Since there is no assertion or proof that the above auxiliary equipment was paid by the date following the date of the closing of argument in the trial, there is no assertion or proof that the above auxiliary equipment was paid by the date of the closing of argument in the trial, the above expense was first disbursed on January 23, 2015, which is the date following the date of the closing of argument in the court of first instance, and the expenses of the auxiliary equipment from February 4, 2034, which is the name of the rental, are the same as the statement in the attached Form.

(a) Special wheelchairss: 3,880,950 won;

(b) Pedestrian aids: 1,234,280 won;

C) Aggregate: 5,115,230 won (=3,880,950 won + 1,234,280 won)

In full view of the result of the physical examination entrusted to the head of the Geman University, the results of the physical examination by the court of the first instance for the head of the Geman University, the results of the physical examination by the head of the Geman University, the Seoul Hospital and the purport of the entire arguments by this court, it can be recognized that the Plaintiff requires the opening of 4 hours a day of ordinary adults and 4 hours a day. In light of the degree, treatment progress, current status, etc. of the Plaintiff, it is reasonable to deem that the opening of the Plaintiff was conducted by his family from the date of the accident to the date of the closing of argument in the first instance. Therefore, when calculating the opening expenses from the date of the medical accident in this case to the date of life rental, it is reasonable to deem that the opening expenses by his family have been calculated from the date of the accident to the date of the closing of argument in the first instance trial, such as the statement in the attached Table for Calculation of Damages Compensation Amount.

D. Limitation on liability

1) Liability ratio: 50%

2) Calculation: 127,486,889 won = (25,276,614 won (actual profit) + 1,048,470 won + 36,674,849 won (pest treatment expenses) + 5,115,230 won (fest treatment expenses) + 186,858,615 won ( nursing expenses) ¡¿ 50%, and forest below its won);

(e) Consolation money: 22,000,000 won;

The details and results of the instant accident, the Plaintiff’s age, the degree and degree of disability, the progress of treatment, the degree of negligence of the Defendant, and other various circumstances shown in the instant argument.

F. Sub-committee

The Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay at each rate of KRW 149,486,889 (=127,486,889 (property damages) + 22,00,000 (property damages))) and the rate of 20% per annum under the Civil Act from July 25, 2010, which is the date of the instant accident, to February 12, 2015, which is the date when the Defendant rendered a substantial judgment to dispute the existence and scope of the obligation to perform, and 5% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the date of full payment.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed for reasons. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is partially unfair with the conclusion, the part against the defendant who ordered payment in excess of the above recognized amount among the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the above revoked part shall be dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges

Judges Lee Chang-hoon

Judges Kim Jin-soo

Judges Kim Young-chul

Note tin

1) The defendant asserts that he/she is merely the status of a person receiving benefits from his/her spouse H. According to the evidence Nos. 5, the fact that business registration was completed on September 9, 2009 under the name of H is recognized. However, according to the overall purport of the statement and arguments No. 1 and No. 4, the defendant stated himself/herself as the president on the medical certificate of the plaintiff issued by the defendant on August 12, 2010. The defendant, upon the plaintiff's complaint, operated D's bill from the investigative agency on June 20, 2012 when he/she was investigated on June 20, 2012, he/she stated that he/she operated D's bill to the plaintiff in the year No. 1995, "E and any interested person", and that he/she jointly operated D's answer to questions to the plaintiff on the date of his/her answer to the plaintiff, the plaintiff and the plaintiff jointly made the investigation into his/her name on the date of question.

2) 좌우양쪽의 비강(鼻腔) 하외측에 있는 패각상(貝殼狀)을 나타내는 독립한 작은 뼈이고 상악골, 구개골에 부착하고 있다. 이 뼈를 경계로 해서 상하의 중비도(中鼻道)와 하비도로 나뉜다. 또한 이 뼈의 모양은 개인에 따라 차이가 크다.