beta
Text
1. The plaintiff (appointed)'s claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff (appointed party) and the appointed party C.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Appointer C (hereinafter “Appointed”) (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) who is an infant of the Plaintiff (Appointed Party”) (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”) entered the Army on November 17, 2008 by adding up the Plaintiff and the Appointor, and received mental treatment and treatment from around September 2009 at the Armed Forces C Hospital, etc. (hereinafter “Plaintiffs, etc.”) and was on December 4, 2009.
B. According to the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2012Gahap537107, the designated parties filed a lawsuit seeking damages against D and Korea by asserting that each designated party has the duty to pay KRW 192,97,397,397, and the delay damages therefrom, on January 29, 2013, the aforementioned court dismissed the designated party’s claim on the grounds that there was no evidence to prove the facts alleged by the designated party’s aforementioned assertion, and that there was no evidence to prove that the designated party’s claim was presented.
Therefore, Seoul High Court Decision 2013Na2004799 was appealed, but the above court rendered a judgment dismissing the designated person's appeal on November 29, 2013, by neglecting the early diagnosis and treatment of the designated person, which prevents the designated person from receiving any treatment until three months have passed since the occurrence. As a result, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the designated person's mental division certificate has deteriorated more, and the court rendered a judgment dismissing the designated person's appeal (hereinafter "the above appellate judgment") by adding to the reasons that there is no evidence to acknowledge that the designated person's mental division certificate has aggravated, and the Supreme Court rendered a judgment dismissing the designated person's appeal on March 27, 2014.
C. On May 7, 2015, the Appointor dismissed the Appointor’s claim by Seoul High Court Decision 2015Na20018 on May 7, 2015 as to the complaint against D including the Appointor.