(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.3.22.선고 2013가합67667 판결

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 587, 033, 796 won with 5% interest per annum from September 1, 2011 to March 22, 2016, and 15% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. 6/10 of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Defendant, and the remainder by the Plaintiff, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

Purport of claim

The defendant's claim of this case against the plaintiff 909,027,262 won and the plaintiff's claim of this case from September 1, 2011

Until service date of an application for change in the cause of action, 5% per annum and 5% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment.

20% interest shall be paid in 20% interest.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Status of the parties

The defendant is a juristic person operating B University Hospital (hereinafter referred to as the "Defendant Hospital"), and the plaintiff is a person who undergoes surgery on cerebral connection at the defendant hospital.

B. On August 23, 2011, the Plaintiff underwent brain CT and MRI tests at the Gangseosung Hospital due to a sudden accident during parking around August 23, 201. The Plaintiff was diagnosed at the above inspection as suspected of non-frequency cerebral cerebral Bribery. Accordingly, the Plaintiff was within the Defendant Hospital and was for further inspection and treatment on August 29, 201.

The Plaintiff was hospitalized in the Defendant Hospital. At the time of hospitalization, the Plaintiff’s condition was a normal condition of consciousness, blood pressure, and physical exercise ability, except for a little two copies (a pain evaluation score 1). (2) As a result of the cerebrovascular test conducted on August 29, 2011, it was confirmed that the Plaintiff’s brain ties of size 22 x 18 meters at the right side of the Plaintiff’s serious brain ties.

3) From 40 to 17:30 on September 1, 2011, the medical professionals at Defendant Hospital performed the Plaintiff’s dogc and meculatory meculing surgery (hereinafter “the first operation”). After the first operation, the two and two mouths were cut under general anesthesia, and the inner meculing was observed at the inner mecule subdivision of the pnethal thaleculcule, the size of 20 meters at the inner meculatory mecule mecule in size. Medical professionals did not temporarily have three parts of the total number of 3 parts of the conmeculium, the first mecule, the first mecule, the second mecule, the second mecule, and the second mecule part of the mecule in the middle mecule part, the second mee part of the mecule part of the meculing surgery, the second 7m me part of the me.

C. At around 17:30 of the end of the second surgery and the anesthesia surgery, the Plaintiff moved to the patient room. From around 17:35, the Plaintiff appealed from 17:5, and around 17:50, the oxygen oxygen was reduced to 78%, along with the symptoms with the respiratory difficulty, and the expansion of the dynamics was found thereafter. At around 18:10, the insertion in the engine was implemented, and at around 18:13, the Plaintiff was in an anti-congested state. Medical team decided to conduct an emergency operation, which is suspected of cerebral epidemism.

2) On September 18, 201, medical personnel from around 30: (a) around 30, 201; (b) from around 30, 200, medical personnel performed climatic climatic and cerebral chroscopic chronology; (c) was relatively serious at the time of the operation, but there was climatic blood and cerebral chroscopic chopic chopic chopic chopic chopic chopic chopic chopic chopic chopic chopic chopic chopic chopic chopic chopic chopic chrecopic chopic chopic chopus; (d) performed copic chopic chopic chopic chopic chopic chopic chopic chopic chopic chopic chopic ch.

4) Since then, treatment of mixed demand was conducted until September 12, 201 due to brain pressure rise and the symptoms of the left-hand side vision, and the Plaintiff recovered consciousness and was transferred to the general sick room on the 19th day of the same month as the status was stable.

D. On September 20, 201, the third surgery and the past one) around September 20, 201, medical personnel decided to conduct an emergency operation according to the Plaintiff’s opinion on cerebral cerebralcular surgery. On the same day, 14: 15 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “third surgery”). During the operation, the first surgery was implemented, the first surgery was conducted on the side side of the previous cerebral dye (suga rights 7mm) with a size of 7 meters high (suga strat: 10m) and 10m high-scale (suga 10m high-level mix) with a size of 10m high-level m (10m high-level mix 10m high-level mix).

2) After the third operation, the Plaintiff received medical treatment in a middle-patient, and transferred to a general hospital on October 17, 201, and received rehabilitation treatment from the 20th of the same month, the Plaintiff discharged from the Defendant Hospital on June 27, 2012.

At the time of discharge, the plaintiff was in the state of the disorder on the left-hand side of the high level, mental function disorder, blind, and rear function disorder.

E. After the discharge of the Plaintiff’s current state, the Plaintiff received medical treatment at the Magnam-si Hospital, the Ddonese Hospital, the Gangnam-do Hospital, and the Magdong-dong Hospital, and at the current left-hand horse, pedestrian disability, and the recognition function degradation.

바. 이 사건 합의의 경위 1 ) 한편 원고의 처인 이▣▣는 2012. 6. 22. 원고의 대리인이라며 피고와 합의서를 작성하였는데 ( 이하 ' 이 사건 합의서 ' 라 한다 ), 그 주된 내용은 피고가 원고에게 위자료 명목으로 6, 100만 원을 지급하되 원고는 피고, 피고 병원의 모든 의료진, 보험회사 등에 대한 민사 형사 · 행정상의 모든 권리를 포기하고, 민원제기, 언론 및 인터넷 등을 통한 호소, 면담강요, 집회 · 시위 등의 행위를 모두 금지한다는 것이다 . 2 ) 이 사건 합의서에는 원고의 기명 옆에 원고의 도장이 날인되어 있고, 그 아래 원고의 대리인으로 이▣▣가 자필 서명하고 무인을 날인하였으며, 원고 및 이▣▣의 신분증 사본과 이미의 가족관계증명서가 첨부되어 있다 . 3 ) 피고는 위 합의금 61, 000, 000원에서 피고 병원의 진료비 25, 828, 930원을 공제하고 나머지 35, 171, 070원을 이▣▣에게 지급하였다 .

G. In the relevant medical knowledge 1), the increase in part of the wall of the brain ties in Paris shape, and the occurrence of the epidemological burden caused by the epidemism in the brain bed and the loss from the damage of the resistant layer and the loss from the pulmonary rhesion arising from the rhesion of the death and the rhesion. The cerebral dys became known that approximately one to two percent of the total population were to have a prone rate, and half of them were known to cause blood transfusion. Since the wall of the cerebral dys were thin and a half of them died, it is serious that the cerebral dys died, and thus, the cerebral dys were treated at an early stage before the cerebral dys are infected with the risk of the cerebral dys and immediately before the cerebral dys were infected.

The method of treating brain beeral beeral beeral beeral beeral beeral beeral beeral beeral beeral beeral beeral beeral beeral beeral beeral beeral beeral beeral beeral beeral beeral beeral beeral beeral beeral beeral beeral beeral beeral beeral beeral beeral beeral beeral beeral beeral beeral beeral beeral beeral beeral beeral beeral beeral beeral beeral beeral beeral beeral beeral beeral beeral beeral beeral beeral beeral beeral beeral beeral beeral beeral beeral beeral beeral beeral beeral beeral beeral beeral beeral beeral beeral beeral beeral beeral beeral beeral beer.

[ 인정근거 ] 다툼 없는 사실, 갑 제1, 5, 6, 10 내지 14호증 ( 가지번호 있는 것은 가지번호 포함, 이하 같다 ), 을 제1 내지 4, 7, 8, 10, 12호증의 각 기재, 증인 이▣▣의 증언 , 이 법원의 가톨릭대학교 서울성모병원장에 대한 신체감정촉탁 결과, 이 법원의 순천향대학교 서울병원장에 대한 진료기록감정촉탁 결과, 변론 전체의 취지

2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

A. The parties' assertion

피고는, 이 사건 소 제기가 부제소 합의에 위반된 것이므로 부적법하다고 항변하고, 이에 대해 원고는 이 사건 합의 당시 이▣▣에게 대리권을 수여한 바 없으므로 이 사건 합의가 무효라고 주장한다 .

다시 피고는 설령 원고가 이▣▣에게 이 사건 합의에 관한 대리권을 수여하지 않았다 하더라도 ① 이 사건 합의는 민법 제827조에 따른 일상가사대리행위로서 유효하고, ② 이▣▣가 원고의 도장 및 신분증을 제시하였으므로 민법 제125조 대리권 수여 표시에 의한 표현대리로서 유효하며, ③ 민법 제126조 권한을 넘은 표현대리에 해당하여 원고에게 책임이 있고, ④ 원고가 이 사건 합의를 추인하였으므로 원고에게 효력이 미친다고 주장한다 .

B. Determination

1) Whether the Plaintiff’s power of representation is granted

As seen above in the facts of recognition, Article 3 of the Agreement of this case provides that "The plaintiff waives all civil administrative rights related to this case," and it is reasonable to interpret the Agreement of this case as the non-committee agreement.

다만 이 사건 합의서는 이▣▣가 원고의 대리인 자격으로 피고와 체결하였는바 , 이▣▣에게 적법한 대리권이 있었는지에 관하여 살펴본다. 이 사건 합의서에 원고의 도장이 날인되어 있고, 원고의 신분증 사본이 첨부되어 있는 사실은 앞서 본 바와 같으나, 위 인정사실 및 앞서 거시한 증거들에 의하여 알 수 있는 다음과 같은 사정들을 종합하면, 피고가 제출한 증거만으로는 이▣▣가 원고로부터 이 사건 합의의 체결 권한을 위임받았음을 인정하기에 부족하고 달리 이를 인정할 증거가 없으므로, 이 사건 합의는 원고에게 효력이 없다할 것이다 .가 ) 3차 수술 후 9개월 가량 재활치료를 받았으나 원고의 상태가 호전되지 않고 피고측에서 치료비 중간정산을 독촉하자 이▣▣는 담당의사에게 ' 도와달라 ' 고 하였고, 담당의사가 ' 원무과에 잘 이야기 해 놓았으니 찾아가보라 ' 고 하였으며, 원무과장이 합의금 이야기를 하여 이 사건 합의에 이르게 되었다 .

나 ) 입원 기간이 길어지면서 입원실 사물함에 원고의 지갑, 도장, 신분증이 보관되어 있었고, 이 사건 합의서 작성 당시 피고측에서 원고의 도장, 신분증을 가지고 오라고하여 이▣▣가 이를 가지고 갔는데, 당시 원고가 자신의 도장, 신분증을 이미미에게 맡긴 것은 아니다 .

다 ) 이▣▣는 원고가 수술을 받았고 자신이 보호자이기 때문에 당연히 자신이 하는 일이라고 생각하여 이 사건 합의를 한 것이고, 이▣▣가 퇴원 직전까지 이 사건 합의 사실을 원고에게 말하지 않아 원고는 이 사건 합의에 대해 전혀 알지 못하고 있었다 .

D) At the time of the instant agreement, the Plaintiff did not have a same disorder as the above recognized facts, but did not make a decision, or did not have a different degree of interest. Rather, the Plaintiff expressed a hostile mind on the Defendant’s side by stating that “the Plaintiff becomes a disabled.” The instant agreement was paid consolation money of KRW 61 million to the Defendant’s medical personnel, insurance companies, etc., given up all rights of the Defendant’s and the Defendant’s hospital, and given up all rights to the Defendant’s medical personnel, insurance companies, etc., and through appeal, coercion, coercion, interview, assembly, demonstration, etc. through civil petition filing, media, Internet, etc., and thus, it does not appear that the Plaintiff had a significant interest in the Plaintiff.

2) Whether the act constitutes a daily act of virtual agent under Article 827 of the Civil Act

피고는 이 사건 합의가 이▣▣의 일상가사대리행위로서 유효하다고 주장한다 .

The term "legal act with respect to daily home affairs" under Articles 827 and 832 of the Civil Act refers to a legal act with respect to ordinary affairs necessary for a couple's community. The specific scope is not only the social status, property, and revenue capacity of the couple's community, but also the custom of the community, which is the place of the living of the couple's community. However, in determining whether the specific legal act is a legal act with respect to daily home affairs, it should be determined by considering not only the internal circumstance of the couple's community or the individual purpose of the act, but also the objective type, character, etc. of the legal act (see Supreme Court Decision 200Da8267 delivered on April 25, 200).

을 제1호증의 기재, 증인 이▣▣의 증언 및 변론 전체의 취지에 의하면, 원고의 장기간 입원으로 인해 원고 가족의 경제 사정이 어려워진 상황에서 피고 병원의 치료비 및 향후 소요될 치료비를 마련하기 위하여 이▣▣가 이 사건 합의를 체결한 것이기는 하나, 이 사건 합의가 부부의 공동생활에 직접적으로 필요한 자금을 조달하기 위한 것은 아닌 점, 이 사건 합의는 피고로부터 합의금을 지급받는 대신 일체의 권리를 포기하고 향후 어떠한 내용의 이의도 제기하지 않는 것으로서 금전적 측면 뿐만 아니라 원고와 피고 사이의 향후 권리관계를 규율하는 측면도 있는 점 등을 종합하면, 이 사건 합의의 체결행위가 부부의 공동생활에서 필요로 하는 통상의 사무에 관한 법률행위에 해당한다고 보기 어렵다 .

3) Whether a expressive representation under Article 125 of the Civil Act is established

피고는 이▣▣가 합의 당시 원고의 도장과 신분증을 소지하고 있었고, 이는 원고가 이미에게 대리권을 수여하였음을 표시한 것이므로 민법 제125조의 표현대리가 성립한다고 주장하나, 앞서 본 것처럼 원고가 이▣▣에게 그 도장과 신분등을 맡긴 것이 아니라 이▣▣가 사물함에 있던 원고의 도장과 신분증을 가져간 것이므로 이▣▣가 원고의 도장과 신분증을 소지한 것만으로 원고가 이▣▣에게 대리권을 수여하는 표시를 한 것이라고 단정할 수 없고, 더구나 원고는 피고 병원의 보호 하에 있었고 의사소 통이 가능하였으며 이 사건 합의는 원고에게 매우 중요한 내용임에도 피고가 이 사건 합의나 이▣▣에게 대리권이 있는지 여부에 관하여 원고에게 한 번도 확인하지 않은 점에 비추어 보면, 당시 이▣▣에게 대리권이 없음을 알지 못한 점에 대해 피고에게 과실이 있다할 것이므로 피고의 위 주장도 이유 없다 .

4) Whether a expressive representation under Article 126 of the Civil Act is established

피고는, 이▣▣에게 원고를 대리하여 이 사건 합의를 체결할 권한이 없다 하더라도 일상가사대리권이 있는 이▣▣가 그 권한을 넘어 이 사건 합의를 체결하였으므로 민법 제126조에 따라 원고에게 책임이 있다고 주장한다 .

이미미가 원고의 부인으로서 일상가사대리권이 있고, 피고가 이미에게 원고를 대리하여 이 사건 합의를 체결할 권한이 있었다고 믿었다고 하더라도, 이▣▣에게 그 대리권이 있었다고 인정되지 않는 이상 민법 제126조의 표현대리가 성립하기 위하여는 피고가 이▣▣에게 그 대리권이 있었다고 믿었음을 정당화할 만한 객관적인 사정이 있어야 한다 ( 대법원 2009. 12. 10. 선고 2009다66068 판결, 대법원 1998. 7. 10. 선고 98다18988 판결 등 참조 ) .

그러나 앞서 본 바와 같이 이 사건 합의서 작성 당시 이▣▣가 원고의 도장 , 신분증만 가지고 왔을 뿐 위임장 등 대리권을 증명할 서류는 가져오지 않은 점, 피고는 이 사건 합의에 관하여 원고에게 한 번도 확인하지 않은 점 등에 비추어 보면, 피고가 이▣▣에게 이 사건 합의와 관련하여 원고를 대리할 권한이 있었다고 믿었음을 정당화할 객관적인 사정이 존재한다고 보기 어렵다. 따라서 피고의 이 부분 주장도 이유 없다 .

5) Whether the agreement of this case was ratified or not

피고는 원고가 이 사건 합의를 추인하였다고 주장한다. 증인 이이의 증언에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면, 이▣▣가 퇴원 직전에 원고에게 이 사건 합의에 관하여 말한 사실, 합의금이 피고 병원의 치료비와 퇴원 이후 다른 병원에서의 치료비에 사용된 사실은 인정되나, 이는 원고에게 피고로부터 위로금을 좀 받았다고 말하였을 뿐 구체적인 설명은 하지 않았고, 부제소 합의나 권리 포기 등에 대해서도 설명하지 않았던 점 등에 비추어 보면, 피고가 제출한 증거만으로는 원고가 이▣▣의 이 사건 합의 체결에 관한 무권대리 행위를 명시적으로나 묵시적으로 추인하였다고 인정하기 부족하고, 달리 이를 인정할 증거가 없다 .

C. Sub-decision

따라서 이▣▣가 권한 없이 체결한 이 사건 합의는 원고에게 그 효력이 미치지 않는다할 것이므로, 피고의 본안 전 항변은 받아들이지 아니한다 .

3. Judgment on the merits

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) Selection of inappropriate treatment methods

The medical personnel of the defendant hospital did not perform the co-fluoral chronsis on the non-spopic chronology, which is a general and effective treatment corporation, and carried out an operation chronological chronological chronological chronology with a high risk of a spop

2) In the course of an operation, blood was generated from a shot and a prop-freeing surgery when performing the surgery for lack of alcohol and the duty of care, and the clock location and applicable level was not appropriate, and the clock did not confirm the complete bid of cerebral connection, and blood was generated between the clock and the clock.

3) At the time of the first operation of a neglect of surveillance duty, the person did not perform an anti-cerebrovascular fluor or blood panscular fluor to monitor the flow of cerebrovascular while performing the first operation, and the second operation did not perform an examination of brain flusium generation. 4) violation of the duty to explain.

In explaining the alcohol prior to the execution of the first operation, the only explanation was given to the existence of the coch-fluence other than the surgery, and the right to self-determination on the selection of treatment method was infringed without any explanation about the surgery, the co-fluence, the cluence, etc.

B. 1) Selection of inappropriate treatment methods as to whether the Defendant hospital’s medical professionals’ negligence is responsible for damages

In providing medical treatment, a doctor shall have the reasonable discretion to choose the method of medical treatment deemed appropriate based on the patient’s situation, at the time, the level of medical care at the time, and his/her knowledge and experience, and only one of the results of medical treatment shall not be deemed to have been justified and any other measure shall not be deemed to have been negligent (Supreme Court Decision 2007. May 2007).

31. See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da5867, supra)

As seen earlier, the fact that the brain ties occurred to the Plaintiff is a serious brain ties of 20 meters in size. As a result of the request for the examination of medical records to the head of Seoul Hospital at this court, the following circumstances revealed by the entire purport of the pleadings, namely, cochch-chroning can be verified during the surgery, there are mergers accompanying the opening of the surgery, and there are advantages that the period of hospitalization is short, and that it is favorable for the treatment of the rear circulation system that is difficult to approach through the opening of the surgery. Since the surgery ties can be viewed as a direct string in the operation, it is more complete treatment. In full view of the above: (a) the possibility of simultaneous treatment with respect to the blood or hydropathy; (b) the possibility of spreading both during the operation or after the operation; (c) the size and scale of the surgery during the operation; (d) the patient’s age at which the patient was chosen; and (e) the patient’s 1) the patient’s age in the operation at bar and its surrounding surgery is difficult to be considered.

B) When a physician of a duty of care neglected to perform a medical act such as a medical examination, treatment, etc., he/she has a duty of care to take the best measures required to prevent danger depending on the patient’s specific symptoms or circumstances in light of the nature of the duty to manage the patient’s life and physical health. Such duty of care is based on the level of medical practice performed in the clinical field, such as a medical institution, etc. at the time of performing the medical act. However, the level of medical care refers to the so-called medical awareness generally known to and recognized at the time of the medical act by an ordinary doctor, and thus, it should be regularly identified in light of the medical environment, conditions, and specificity of the medical act (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da13045, Oct. 28, 2005).

(6) From the first operation, the Plaintiff complained of two pieces immediately after the first operation, and the Plaintiff was in a 40-minutey condition after the first operation, and the fact that the blood transfusion was observed at the end of the first operation at the time is as seen above. The evidence presented in the above recognition and evidence Nos. 3, 4, 17 through 23, and Nos. 13, 14, and 15 are acknowledged as follows. In other words, the Plaintiff’s negligence on the part of the hospital after the first operation to prevent the operation from spreading clocking down, clocking down, clicking, or clicking, or clicking, even after the first operation.

C) According to the overall purport of the arguments and arguments, medical professionals at the time of the first surgery conducted negoriology surveillance (IOM) during the surgery, and confirmed the blood transfusion of a maternal surgery with an early high frequency after the first surgery. Furthermore, medical professionals are recognized as not performing negoriology surgery at the time of the first surgery and did not perform the second surgery, but did not perform negoriology surgery at the time of the second surgery, it is difficult to conclude that the first surgery was conducted at the time of the surgery at the time of the surgery at the time of the first surgery at the time of the surgery at the time of the first surgery at the time of the surgery at the time of the first surgery at the time of the first surgery at the time of the surgery at the time of the first surgery at the time of the surgery at the time of the first surgery at the time of the surgery at the time of the first surgery at the time of the surgery at the time of the first surgery at the time of the surgery at the time of the first surgery at the time of the expansion of the first surgery at the time of the first surgery.

D) Comprehensively taking account of the description of No. 2 of this Court’s violation of the duty to explain, the result of requesting the examination of medical records to the head of the Seoul Hospital at the time of this court, and the overall purport of arguments, the medical personnel of the defendant hospital sufficiently explained the method of opening and brain malopic maring prior to the first operation, the operation department, risk, side effects, etc., and it can be acknowledged that the defendant hospital explained about the co-operation malopic malopic malopic malopic mals in addition to the surgery. The method of treating the brain malopic malopic mals cannot be deemed as more effective treatment than the surgery malopic malopic malopic mal mals in light of the following: (a) in the case of the serious brain malopic mal malopic mals as seen in the present case, and (b) it is inappropriate to apply the plaintiff to the plaintiff.

2) Determination on causation

In order to be held liable for tort due to breach of the duty of care or non-performance of a medical act, as in other cases, the existence of causation between the violation of the duty of care in the medical act, the occurrence of damages, the violation of the duty of care, and the occurrence of damages should be premised. However, the medical act requires highly specialized knowledge. The process of the medical act is limited to the patient himself/herself, in addition to the patient himself/herself being aware of part of his/her case. Since the medical method to achieve the result of treatment depends on his/her own discretion, it is difficult for the patient to prove whether the direct cause of damages occurred due to the medical negligence as an ordinary person who is not an expert. It is extremely difficult for the patient to prove that the causal link between the occurrence of the violation of the duty of care in the medical act and the damages occurred from the medical act in the victim's side, and it is not reasonable for the patient to prove that there was a defect in the medical act at least 20 years prior to the conclusion of the judgment.

As to the instant case, the Defendant hospital’s medical personnel was negligent in not fully tightly dynamics in the process of conducting the first surgery, and due to the occurrence of protruding transfusions, etc., resulting in the Plaintiff the same bad result as the present situation. It is difficult to deem that other causes have occurred, regardless of the negligence of the Defendant hospital’s medical personnel, and thus, the causal relationship between the negligence and the bad result of the Defendant hospital’s medical personnel is acknowledged. 3) The limitation of liability is limited.

In full view of the above evidence and the overall purport of oral argument as follows, in other words, it is necessary to conduct an operation in order to treat the non-high-frequency brain ties located in the plaintiff's right-hand brain ties, and the size of the brain ties was so large that the risk of the operation was considerable, and the medical personnel at the defendant hospital attempted to take best measures, such as immediately conducting an emergency operation, upon the occurrence of symptoms to the plaintiff after the first operation, etc., even if the plaintiff suffered from disability due to negligence as seen earlier, imposing only all the damages incurred therefrom on the medical personnel is contrary to the principle of equity in light of the degree of difficulty in operation, characteristics of medical practice, degree of danger, etc., and considering the above various circumstances in calculating the amount of damages that the defendant should compensate for. Therefore, in calculating the amount of damages that the defendant should compensate, it shall be taken into account in calculating the amount of damages that the defendant should compensate, but it shall be limited to 60% of the compensation liability.

C. Scope of damages

[Ground of recognition] The absence of dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 2, 7 through 16, Eul's evidence No. 10, the result of the court's commission of physical examination to the Mayor of the Seoul Scartol University, the purport of the whole pleadings

The losses suffered by the Plaintiff due to the above negligence of the medical staff of the Defendant Hospital are as follows. The calculation of the period for the convenience of calculation shall be calculated on a monthly basis, but less than a month shall be discarded, and in calculating the amount, the amount of less than a won shall be discarded, and the present price calculation at the time of the accident shall be governed by the simple interest rate which deducts intermediary interest at the rate of 5/12 per month. Moreover, it shall be rejected that the Plaintiff’s assertion does not separately state.

1) Personal information of lost income: The same shall be recorded in the column of "basic matters" in the attached table of calculation of damages, and the date of termination of life expectancy shall be deemed as September 1, 2038 upon the plaintiff's request, taking into account the plaintiff's symptoms, the opinion about the plaintiff's physical appraisal, and the result of the above physical appraisal.

B) The labor capacity loss rate: Financial assessment of the capacity to operate: From September 1, 2011, which was the day on which the accident occurred, to August 26, 2027, which was the Plaintiff’s income at the time of the accident, based on KRW 2,769,000, which was the Plaintiff’s income at the time of the accident from September 1, 201 to August 26, 2027.

(d) Calculation: 55,530,340 won in case of the treatment costs of KRW 388,466,332).

○ The sum of the Defendant Hospital’s KRW 749, 470, 11, 902, 570, 37, 993, 610, 550, 54, 531, 450, 353, and 240.

○ Medical Treatment Costs 25,828,930 won in the Defendant Hospital was deducted from the agreed amount in accordance with the agreement of this case and did not have been spent by the Plaintiff.

B) Future medical expenses: Medical expenses and medical expenses 12,126,30 won (refer to the statement in the column of "damage of future medical expenses" in the attached table of calculation of damages)

B) Future nursing costs: A total of 413, 895, 825O 825 needs to be opened for eight hours a day from the day following the date on which all the arguments are closed to the day on which life expectancy is closed.

○ The Plaintiff sought nursing expenses from June 28, 2012 to the date of the date of the discharge of the Defendant Hospital. However, in order to claim nursing expenses from June 28, 2012 to the date of the closing of argument in the instant case, even if the Plaintiff actually received nursing expenses or did not spend nursing expenses in reality, it is required that the Plaintiff actually received nursing expenses from the victim’s parents or spouse, etc., and there is no evidence to acknowledge it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da8081, May 14, 1991).

(c) Total amount: 435,895, 825 Won 4): 3,037,50 won ( = 1,518,750 won for wheelchairs chairs + 1,518,750 won for the prevention of bathing for wheelchairs, and 5) the ratio of liability to the total amount of auxiliary equipment: 60% or 50% for the calculation of property damage.

537, 033, 796 won [ = 895, 056, 327 won = Actual income = 388, 466, 332 won + total medical expenses + 67,656, 670 won + total of 435,895,825 won + total of 435,895,825 expenses for nursing + total of 3,037,500 won] x 60%) Consideration Consideration: The circumstance and result of the accident, the degree of negligence by the medical staff of the Defendant hospital, and the Plaintiff’s age and condition, etc., are considered.

(b) Amount determined: 50,000,000 won;

D. Sub-determination

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 587,03,796 (=property damage = KRW 537,03,796 + solatium 50,00,000) and to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum as prescribed by the Civil Act from September 1, 201, which was the date of the second operation, to September 22, 201, the date of the instant judgment, until March 22, 2016, which is the date of the instant judgment, to the day of full payment, to the day of full payment.

4. Conclusion

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