beta
Text
1. The plaintiff (appointed party)'s appeal and the plaintiff's claim expanded from the trial court are dismissed, respectively.
2...
Reasons
1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in accordance with Gap evidence Nos. 4-1, 2, 3, 5-1 to 7, 12, 34-1, 34-2, and 2 as a whole in consideration of the purport of the entire pleadings:
The Selectioner H (hereinafter referred to as the “H”) worked at the physical point established in the central library of Defendant School Foundation B (hereinafter referred to as Defendant B) and discovered by being used on September 16, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant accident”), and was transferred to the emergency room of the K Hospital, and was hospitalized at the said hospital.
B. Defendant D, a medical doctor of the above hospital, entered the diagnosis name in the H’s emergency medical records on September 16, 1997, as “alcoho lobho xication,” and on September 23, 1997, the name of C in the diagnosis form “sulperosis” as “sulperosis” on October 4, 1997; Defendant C, a doctor of the above hospital, entered C in the diagnosis form of H on December 15, 1997, the name of C in the diagnosis form of H on September 18, 1997, and Defendant G, a doctor of the above hospital, as the name of C in the diagnosis form of H on September 18, 1997, as the name of C 2bot/day x 30 years x 30 years x 30 years x 30 years x 30 years x day.
C. On December 15, 1997, H applied for benefits on the ground of a disease caused by duties to the Korea Teachers Pension Foundation for Private School Teachers and Staff, but did not receive benefits. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant B by asserting that the instant accident constituted occupational accidents by the Seoul Western District Court 2001Kahap1409, and appealed the judgment dismissing the claim for damages on March 7, 2003, but the said judgment became final and conclusive after being sentenced to the Seoul High Court 2003Na24743 on February 1, 2005, and the said judgment became final and conclusive. The Seoul High Court filed a lawsuit for retrial under the Seoul High Court 2007Na804 on September 10, 2009.
The plaintiff is the wife of H, and the Selection and the J are the children of H.
2. The Defendants’ determination as to this safety defense is that the Plaintiff and H are Defendant B.