Plaintiff 1 and three others (Attorneys O Sung-sung et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellee)

Defendant 1 Medical Corporation and one other (Attorney Kim Jae-sik, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

August 22, 2007

Daejeon District Court Decision 2004Gadan47793 Delivered on November 29, 2005

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiffs of the money ordered to be paid next shall be revoked.

The Defendants pay to each of the Plaintiffs 1 3,074,412 won, 4,000 won, 3, and 4,000 won, 1,500,000 won, and 5% per annum from July 3, 2003 to October 10, 2007, and 20% per annum from the following to the date of full payment.

2. All remaining appeals by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

3. Two minutes of the total costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiffs, and the remainder is assessed against the Defendants.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendants shall pay to each plaintiff 1 63,961,025 won, and 5,000,000 won to the plaintiff 2, and 3,000,000 won, respectively, and 5% per annum from July 3, 2003 to the date the judgment of the first instance is rendered, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Grounds for liability

The following facts can be acknowledged in full view of the results of the fact-finding inquiry into the head of the original university and the head of the hospital of the original university, as a result of the first instance court's physical commission of the head of the Daejeon University. The fact-finding results in the fact-finding inquiry into the head of the original university and the head of the hospital of the university, and the whole purport of the pleadings.

(1) The party's status relationship

Plaintiff 1 is the husband of Plaintiff 1, the plaintiff 3, and the plaintiff 4 are the children of the plaintiff 1, the plaintiff 1's husband, the plaintiff 3, and the plaintiff 1. The defendant hospital is the employer of the child father and the medical specialist who treated and performed the plaintiff 1.

(2) The first operation (or Cruel removal from a laver by a laverg).

(A) On May 3, 2003, the Plaintiff 1 was diagnosed to have a cruel treatment in the early wave test while receiving medical treatment from Defendant 2, with the care of the outpatients.

(B) Accordingly, Defendant 2 solicited Plaintiff 1 to perform the above cruel removal operation, but did not explain that Defendant 2 could be a bruptor or an brupt damage during the above operation.

(C) On July 3, 2003, the plaintiff 1 was hospitalized in the defendant hospital from 13:00 to 16:00 on his day, and the plaintiff 1 was affected by the left-hand manager in the course of the operation (the non-party 1, the non-party 1, who performed the following part of the catology in accordance with the statement No. 10-16, cather cather cather cather cather cather cather cather cather cather cather cather cather cather cather cather cather cather cather cather cather cather cather cather cather cather cather cather cather cather cather cather cather cather cather cather cather cather.).

(D) At the time, Plaintiff 1 was seriously infected with another organization and the need for administration due to the patriarche certificate.

(3) The second operation (e.g., single shortly shortly shortly)

(A) On July 5, 2003, Defendant 2, while observing Plaintiff 1’s progress of the operation, became aware of the fact that the left-hand manager was damaged as a result of the inspection.

(B) Accordingly, at around 17:50 on July 5, 2003, Nonparty 1, the urine director of the Defendant Hospital, invited Nonparty 2 of the urology director of the urology hospital, and performed a surgery to easily open and connect the damaged urine of Plaintiff 1, by the method of the urology surgery.

(3) The third operation (influence after the opening of the summary);

Plaintiff 1 subsequently received a pain treatment at the urology of the Defendant Hospital, and the length of the urine part damaged by the primary surgery was the way, and even the remaining urine part was not sufficient to provide the blood products, and the situation of the left-hand part of the urine part of the urine part of the hospital became worse on November 3, 2003, under the diagnosis of the urology of the urine part of the hospital at the urine part of the hospital at the urine part of the hospital at the urine part of the hospital at the urine part of the hospital at the urine part of the hospital at the urine part of the hospital at the urine part of December 18, 203, and received an operation to put the urine part into the urine part of the hospital.

(4) The deterioration of the function of the extension and the removal of the extension;

(A) However, Plaintiff 1 was diagnosed as the result of the inspection on June 20, 2004 as “inward receipt.” At the time, Plaintiff 1 was diagnosed as the result of the inspection on June 20, 2004. At that time, Plaintiff 1 was an infinite to the extent of approximately 10cm, and the left-hand side was 0.5% of the extension function and the right-hand extension function was 8.9% of the extension function.

(B) Accordingly, on July 7, 2004, Plaintiff 1 received a procedure for the removal of kidne on the left-hand side through the diversary diversary diversary dives around July 7, 2004, and thereby only functions

(5) According to the above facts, Defendant 2, as a skilled medical specialist at the time of the first operation of this case, neglected to pay high attention to preventing damage to the crubs, etc. that may occur in the process of removing brugs in the womb, but neglected to do so, thereby damaging the left-hand-hand-hand-hand-hand-hand-hand-hand-hand-hand-hand-hand-hand-hand-hand-hand-hand-hand-hand-hand-hand-hand-hand-hand-on-hand-hand-hand-on-hand-on-hand-on-hand-hand-on-hand-on-hand-on-hand-on-hand-on-hand-on-hand-on-hand-on-hand-hand-on-hand-on-hand-

B. Limitation on liability

However, at the time of the first operation, Plaintiff 1 was in a serious condition due to the symptoms of her own womb, and even this was provided with the cause of damage to her own womb. Therefore, the Defendants’ responsibility is limited to 70% of the total damages.

2. Scope of damages.

(a) Actual profits;

The loss of lost income equivalent to the amount of monetary total appraised value of operating capacity lost due to the accident in this case is KRW 31,782,148 if it is calculated as the present price at the time of the accident in this case according to the discount method that deducts intermediary interest at the rate of 5 percent per month based on the following basic facts:

(1) The basic facts

(A) Gender: The date of birth of female: March 3, 1955

Age at the time of an accident: 48 years of age or 4 months: 33.73

(b) Actual income: 1,154,626 won per month for daily employed workers ( = 52,483 won x 22 days)

(C) Maximum working age: Before reaching the age of 60 (140 months from the date of the accident)

(d)the ratio of injury to work and labor disability;

Function without prejudice to remove the left-hand side and function only for the right-hand side;

Permanent loss of labor capacity 25%

(2) calculated 1,154,626 x 110.1037 x 0.25 x 31,782,148 won

(b) Medical expenses;

61,950 won (each description of evidence of subparagraphs A through 6)

(c) Expenses for future treatment;

Plaintiff 1 requires 519,560 won a year as expenses for the inspection of kidne function during the life period, so it is calculated at present (=519,560 won x 19.1894) (Evidence: Results of a request for physical examination of the head of Daejeon-Man Hospital at the court of first instance for the examination of the head of Daejeon-Man Hospital)

(d) Sexual surgery and medical expenses;

Plaintiff 1 needs to make anti-scam corrective methods on the operation department and to do so, KRW 2,150,000 is required (Evidence: Results of physical examination on the head of the Daejeon Escam Hospital at the court of first instance).

(e) Negligence offsetting;

Total 43,961,025 won ¡¿ 0.7 = 30,772,717 won

(f) Mutual aid;

(1) 9.7 million won (No. 5-1, 5) paid by Defendant 1 medical corporation

(2) The amount equivalent to the Plaintiff’s percentage of fault out of the amount of KRW 4,018,50 (Evidence No. 5-3, 4, and evidence No. 10-1, 2, and 11) of the unpaid medical expenses paid by Defendant 1 medical corporation to the Defendant Hospital of KRW 2,761,180 and KRW 3,214,670 (Evidence No. 5-3, 4, and evidence No. 10-1, 2, and 11)

(3) Balance 18,074,412

(g) Consolation money;

(1) Reasons for consideration: The plaintiffs' age, relationship, the background and result of the accident of this case, and the degree of negligence of both parties, as shown in the arguments of this case.

(2) Decision amount: plaintiff 11.5 million won, plaintiff 2.4 million won, plaintiff 3 and 4.1.5 million won, respectively.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendants are obligated to pay 3,074,412 won to each plaintiff 1 at 33,074,412 (property damage + 18,074,412 won + 15,000 won for consolation money + 15,000 won for 2,000 won for each plaintiff 4,50,000 won for each of the above money and each of the above money from July 3, 2003, which is the date of the accident of this case, to dispute about the existence and scope of liability from July 3, 2003 to October 10, 207, which is the date of the decision of the court of first instance, and 5% for each of the above 20% annual interest under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings until the date after the above date. Thus, the plaintiffs' claims in this case are justified within the above scope of recognition, and all of the remaining claims of the plaintiffs are dismissed, and all of the plaintiffs' appeals are dismissed.

Judge Lee Jong-soo (Presiding Judge)