(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.8.22. 선고 2017나85889 판결

1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the part of the judgment against the Defendants ordering the Defendants to jointly pay the Plaintiff KRW 10,369,291 as well as 5% per annum from December 3, 2014 to August 22, 2018, and 15% per annum from the next day to the date of complete payment. The Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants corresponding to the revoked part is dismissed.

2. The Plaintiff’s respective appeals against the Defendants and all remaining appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

3. Two-thirds of the total litigation cost shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendants, respectively.

Purport of claim and appeal

1. Purport of claim

The Defendants jointly pay to the Plaintiff 34,326,402 won with 5% interest per annum from December 3, 2014 to the date of this judgment, and 15% interest per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

2. Purport of appeal

A. The plaintiff

The part against the plaintiff in the judgment of the first instance is revoked. The defendants jointly pay to the plaintiff 23,924,765 won with 5% interest per annum from December 3, 2014 to the date of this judgment, and 15% interest per annum from the next day to the date of complete payment.

B. Defendant

The part against the Defendants in the judgment of the first instance is revoked, and each of the claims against the Defendants as to the revocation part is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Partial acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance

The reasoning of the court’s reasoning concerning this case is as follows: “4.c. future treatment costs” portion in the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for modification as described in Paragraph 2(b) as stated in Paragraph 2(a). As such, (i) Evidence Nos. 1-2, 3, 5-2, 5-2, 14-3, and 14-2; and (ii) evidence Nos. 2; and (iii) evidence Nos. 14-3 and 2-2; and (iv) the purport of oral argument at the court of first instance as to the testimony of the witness F of the court of first instance, it is reasonable to acknowledge that the Plaintiff was liable for damages incurred to the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff did not take any proper measures, such as immediately relocating the hospital’s hospital, despite having failed to perform its duty of care required in the process of giving vaccination to the Plaintiff. Furthermore, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendants suffered damages incurred from the surgery of this case can be denied.

2. Revised parts

(a) Expenses for future treatment;

In order to treat the above body of this case, the Plaintiff asserts that repeated rashing treatment, skin transplant, etc. in addition to anti-scambing surgery, and sought to include the future treatment expenses in the amount of damages. However, according to the result of the physical examination commission with respect to the head of the Guro Hospital at the Korea University at the first instance, the treatment for the above body of this case was completed once again, but it can only be recognized that there is a need to implement an additional anti-scambing treatment at the Plaintiff’s option in order to minimize inconvenience due to the existence of anti-scambing. The medical certificate issued by the Plaintiff by private (Evidence No. 5-2, 7, 16) alone is insufficient to recognize the fact that the treatment is needed in addition to the anti-scambing treatment as a result of the physical examination commission, and this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is not acceptable without any other evidence.

On the other hand, the expected amount of damages such as future medical expenses may be compensated only for damages actually incurred if the expected period has already expired at the time of the closure of the arguments in the fact-finding court. Thus, if the expected medical expenses have already been spent until the time of the closure of the arguments in the fact-finding court, if it is not so, it shall be determined whether such expenses will be incurred in the future even at the time of the closure of arguments (see Supreme Court Decision 9Da68577, May 12, 2000).

The first instance judgment determined that it is necessary to disburse KRW 754,00,00, respectively, on October 26, 2017, 2017; April 26, 2018; and October 26, 2018; and that two times have passed after the date of closing of argument in the appellate trial ( June 27, 2018) among the three-time procedures scheduled, although the two times have already passed during the date of closing of argument in the instant appellate trial, according to the above physical examination as a result of the above physical examination, it is not necessary to administer the anti-scambalism at the Plaintiff’s option, but to adjust the time at the Plaintiff’s option. If the Plaintiff did not actually undergo anti-scambalination after the date of closing of argument, it can be recognized that such treatment needs to be conducted after the date of closing of argument in the appellate trial even if the Plaintiff did not actually undergo anti-scambalination medication. Accordingly, the appellate court’s calculation should be based on the following 125 months and 28 months following the following the date.

A person shall be appointed.

B. Sub-determination

Therefore, the Defendants jointly have a duty to resist against the Plaintiff regarding the existence and scope of the Defendants’ obligations from December 3, 2014 to August 22, 2018, namely, KRW 8,839,576 + KRW 60% of the costs of treatment in the future + KRW 1,640,149-Central University Hospital Hospital’s Benefit 1,640,576 + KRW 6,000 of the amount corresponding to the Plaintiff’s liability ratio, + KRW 6,00,000 of the amount corresponding to the amount corresponding to the Plaintiff’s liability ratio among the costs of treatment in the future 1,65,576 + KRW 6,00 of the total amount corresponding to the amount corresponding to the amount corresponding to the Plaintiff’s liability ratio.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim against the defendants shall be accepted within the scope of each of the above recognition, and the remaining claims shall be dismissed as without merit. Since the part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendants ordering payment in excess of this limit is unfair, it is revoked and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to that part is dismissed. Since the plaintiff's appeal and the defendants' remaining appeals are without merit, they are dismissed in its entirety. It is so decided as per Disposition.