2014 Gaz. 4111 Compensation (Definition)

1. A;

2. B

1. School foundations C;

2. D;

2016, 4,20

5, 2016. 25

1. The Defendants jointly pay 101,823,023 won to Plaintiff A, 5,00,000 won to Plaintiff B, and 15% interest per annum from August 13, 2012 to May 25, 2016, and 15% interest per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

2. The plaintiffs' remaining claims against the defendants are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, 4/5 are assessed against the Plaintiffs, and the remainder is assessed against the Defendants.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

Defendants jointly and severally pay to Plaintiff A the amount of KRW 434,957,734, KRW 25,00,000, and the amount of KRW 25,000 to Plaintiff B from August 13, 2012 to April 19, 2016, 5% per annum, and 15% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

1. Basic facts

(a) Relations between parties;

1) On July 3, 2012, Plaintiff A was hospitalized in the rehabilitation department of Emedical Center run by Defendant School Foundation C (hereinafter “Defendant Hospital”) for the rehabilitation treatment of the right side reflect, and received treatment on August 8, 2012, and 13, in the hospitalization room of Defendant Hospital, Plaintiff A attempted suicide, and Plaintiff B is the husband of Plaintiff A.

2) Defendant D is a medical specialist in the rehabilitation department belonging to the Defendant Hospital, who is the Plaintiff A’s doctor in charge.

B. Progress of treatment at the Defendant Hospital

1) On June 24, 2012, Plaintiff A was hospitalized in the rehabilitation department of the Defendant Hospital on July 2, 2012, and was hospitalized in the first room of the Defendant Hospital on the following day for active rehabilitation treatment while being receiving treatment by undergoing a diagnosis of the right-hand fluoral scenchosis due to the left brain fluorial scenchosis at the Marine Transport Control Hospital on June 24, 2012.

2) After being hospitalized, Plaintiff A complained of infertility and uneasiness. On July 24, 2012, the rehabilitation medical specialist of the Defendant hospital (F of the rehabilitation medical major) asked the Defendant hospital’s mental health department at the Defendant hospital to compromise with the mental health department. On the same day, Plaintiff A provided that Plaintiff A’s triopco (e.g., e., e., e., e., e.g., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., g., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e.

3) Meanwhile, on July 24, 2012, Plaintiff A had taken the above drugs and suspended the use of drugs at his own discretion, and thereafter, Plaintiff A continuously complained of impergies, and Defendant Hospital’s rehabilitation medical specialist (H in the rehabilitation medical specialist) requested cooperation in the department of mental health of Defendant Hospital on July 30, 2012, and C in the mental health specialist’s appeal that Plaintiff A was well locked without any drug, and had both the medication and the medication.

4) On August 10, 2012, Plaintiff A told H of the rehabilitation major of the Defendant hospital, “I want to be killed.” On the same day, H refused to take Trico and Athy under the cooperation of the mental health department of the patient at the end of the same day, who was aware of the patient at the end of the suicide accident and the patient at the end of the depression. To prescribe this, Plaintiff A requested a compromise with the mental health department of the Defendant hospital. G of the mental health department at the same day after having interview with Plaintiff A, and after having interview with the Plaintiff, G of the mental health department at the end of the Defendant hospital with the effect of obscis (constitiontion disorder, uneasiness caused by depression, and sulfur disorder).

5) On August 13, 2012, in the course of the interview with Defendant D around August 13, 2012, Plaintiff B stated that “the Plaintiff continued to live with Defendant D and said, “the Plaintiff forced him to drink or move to a multi-person room,” and that Defendant D did not have a big problem as it is difficult for him to move to a multi-person, due to the lusium 'the lusium 'the lusium 'the lusium 'the lusium', and most of the lusium patients complained of the lusium to a certain degree, but there was no choice of the extreme group due to the lusium during the lusium treatment.”

C. Occurrence of the instant accident

On August 13, 2012, around 20:20 on August 13, 2012, the nursing service provider discovered that the Plaintiff her was satisfing on the floor by using hand satisfys on the satisfy satfy sat (hereinafter “the instant accident”). Accordingly, the medical personnel of the Defendant Hospital taken all measures to the Plaintiff during the first first-aid medical period after the first-aid treatment, but the Plaintiff her plant life (hereinafter “the instant disability”). However, due to the low oxygen brain damage, the Plaintiff her plant life (hereinafter “the instant disability”).

D. The relevant medical knowledge disorder refers to a disease that causes the degradation of daily functions by causing various perceptions and physical symptoms with a major symptoms of his/her desire and depression. The depression disorder is a serious disease that causes emotional change, thought, physical condition, and behavior, etc. The core symptoms of depression and loss of interest. The most serious symptoms of depression are suicide, suicide in 2/3 of the depression patient, and suicide in 10-15%, and suicide actually takes place at 10-5%. The degree of 4/5 of the depression patient complaining of the disease, and in particular, it appears that the 4/5 degree of the depression patient is unable to sleep, and it appears that it is frequently broken or frequent. A large number of patients seem to have decreased in food and body condition, and some of the patients appear to have increased in food and body condition, and it appears that there appears to have been a serious gap between symptoms and symptoms. It appears that there appears that there appears to be one-half of the symptoms of the patient who suffers from degradation of one day.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5 (including branch numbers in case of additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiffs' assertion

The following negligence of the medical personnel of the Defendant Hospital caused the instant accident, and thereby, the Plaintiff A suffered the instant disability. Accordingly, Defendant D as the doctor in charge, and Defendant C as the user of the medical personnel belonging to the Defendant Hospital and the owner of the structure, etc., are jointly and severally liable for the damages suffered by the Plaintiffs.

1) The medical personnel of the Defendant Hospital mentioned the suicide directly in the situation where the Plaintiff A was strokeed and strokeed after his stroke, thereby evaluating the possibility of the Plaintiff A’s suicide and classifying the Plaintiff as a high-risk group of suicide and providing appropriate treatment accordingly, but did not take the above measures without seriously assessing the possibility of suicide.

2) On August 13, 2012, the medical personnel at Defendant Hospital became aware of the occurrence of the instant accident, and thus, the medical personnel at Defendant Hospital immediately provided the first aid to Plaintiff A only after the lapse of 20 minutes from the first aid.

3) Although the Defendant hospital could take safety measures, such as keeping a dives with a railing in the hospital, it had a dives where the hospitalized patient could attempt suicide by selling the dives, and the accident of this case occurred due to the defect in the installation and preservation of the above structure.

3. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Grounds for liability

1) Whether there was negligence in treating patients at risk of suicide

When a doctor performs medical acts, such as diagnosis and treatment, he/she has a duty of care to take the best measures required to prevent any danger according to the patient's specific symptoms or circumstances in light of the nature of the duties of managing the patient's life, body, and health (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da45146, Oct. 10, 201

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 4 and 5 (including paper numbers), the testimony of witness G, the results of the examination of the defendant D's identity, the results of the examination of each medical record entrusted to the Korea Medical Dispute Mediation and Arbitration Agency of this Court, and the overall purport of the arguments, etc., the medical professionals of the defendant hospital including the defendant D referred to in the following circumstances: although the plaintiff A, who has been deprived of mathy and mathy after the stroke, has a duty of care to evaluate the possibility of suicide through a mental health department and the cooperative team, and to take measures such as counseling, support method, and intensive observation by nurses, etc. for the possibility of suicide, despite the fact that the plaintiff A was asked for suicide on the ground that the plaintiff was mentioned in the suicide, the mental health specialist of the defendant hospital did not make an assessment of the possibility of suicide, despite having been requested by the doctor in charge of this case, and even if the defendant D, who was a doctor in charge, had shown a sudden change in the accident on the day of this case, failed to commit negligence.

(1) If a patient with a sense of loss caused by serious physical or aftermath disorder or friendly sasibide refers to the sasibicide, it shall be classified into a high-risk group for suicide. Medical professionals shall record the necessity of intensive observation and attention in a doctor's order or notify the nurse of the fact that the intensive observation and care are necessary to prevent the patient's attempted suicide, and shall also inform the guardian of the possibility thereof, and inform him of the necessity of intensive care and observation.

On August 10, 2012, Plaintiff A complained of depression and uneasiness due to mathy, and was treated as a psychiatrist on two occasions. On August 10, 2012, Plaintiff A was treated as a psychiatrist at the time of receiving the treatment of the next mental health clinic. At the time, the G of the department of mental health of Defendant Hospital was provided with a prescription without questioning and evaluating the possibility of suicide of Plaintiff A, even though the reference was made to the suicide accident of Plaintiff A on August 10, 2012.

③ The Korea Medical Dispute Mediation and Arbitration Agency affiliated with the Korea Medical Dispute Mediation and Arbitration Agency, which appraised the medical records of the Plaintiff A (hereinafter referred to as “appraisal”) stated that the possibility of suicide by a mental health doctor who received a request for a compromise in the above circumstances is insufficient in terms of the duty of care.

④ On the day of the instant accident, Plaintiff A showed a sudden change in the light of the mind, such as wanting to die, killing, and scinginginging to kill, etc., and even if Plaintiff B requested the Defendant D, who is a doctor in charge of the instant accident, to have an interview with Defendant D, and forced the Plaintiff to take or move to a multi-person, Defendant D merely decided to observe the progress, and did not take measures such as requesting a compromise with the mental health department, or concentrating the Plaintiff A to observe the medical staff at Defendant Hospital.

⑤ As to this, the appraisal shows that if the patient repeatedly expresses and uneasibles about the suicide accident, a compromise with a normal mental health department is recommended to eliminate the possibility of attempted suicide in addition to appropriate treatment, and the time should be implemented as soon as possible due to the sudden breakdown of the accident, the doctor in charge should presume that the patient is in danger of suicide, and require the medical personnel to concentrate on observation, and inform his/her guardian of the possibility of suicide and to inform him/her of the need for intensive care and observation.

2) Whether there was negligence due to delay in emergency measures

According to the evidence evidence evidence No. 4, around August 13, 2012, at around 20:20, the medical personnel at the Defendant Hospital was removed from the floor after the discovery of the Plaintiff, and at around 20:30, contact the J of the rehabilitation major of the Defendant Hospital with the Defendant Hospital, and confirmed the Plaintiff’s active fitness (the blood pressure: 130/80mHg, body temperature: 36.2C, Mabling: 98/44: 84%, food and clothing: 24/40; 88%) and 20:40, and 20:45, the medical personnel at the Defendant Hospital was found to have discovered that the Plaintiff’s first diagnosis of the medical personnel at the Defendant Hospital was not necessary after the discovery of the Plaintiff’s first diagnosis of the medical personnel at the Defendant Hospital’s hospital. However, according to the evidence found that the Plaintiff’s first diagnosis of the medical personnel was not necessary after the discovery of the Plaintiff’s death.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is difficult to accept.

3) Whether there is a defect in the installation or preservation of a structure

The defect in the installation and preservation of a structure under Article 758(1) of the Civil Act refers to a state in which a structure fails to meet safety requirements ordinarily for its use. In determining whether such safety requirements are met, it shall be determined on the basis of whether the installer and custodian of the structure has fulfilled the duty to take protective measures to the extent generally required by social norms in proportion to the risk of the structure (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Da61615, Feb. 11, 2010).

According to each image of the evidence evidence No. 3 (including the paper number), it is deemed that the Defendant’s school juristic person has been equipped with a diversity in the hospitalization room of the Defendant hospital, but on the other hand, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively considering the overall purport of all the evidence and arguments, namely, the reason for installing a diverse in the hospitalization room, is to prevent the patient’s abortion risk, and the height of the above diverse is about 1m from the floor, and it is difficult to expect suicide by combining the above diverse of the diverse, because it is difficult to expect the patient’s suicide to attempt suicide by combining the above diverse in the rehabilitation department and ward. Furthermore, it is difficult to deem that the Defendant’s school juristic person had a duty to keep a diverse in light of the risk that the diverse may be used as a suicide tool, and there is no other evidence that the Defendant’s school juristic person has a duty to keep the diverse system.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is difficult to accept.

4) Sub-committee

In addition, in full view of the description and the overall purport of evidence No. 5-3, the suicide of mentally ill persons may be prevented through consultation and treatment with a mental health department, but there was an accident of this case where the plaintiff A attempted suicide because the medical personnel of the defendant hospital did not take appropriate measures, although the suicide of the mentally ill persons could be prevented by consultation and treatment with a mental health department.

Therefore, Defendant D is an illegal act, and Defendant C is an employer of the medical personnel under his jurisdiction and is responsible for compensating for the damages suffered by the Plaintiffs due to the instant accident.

B. Limitation on liability

However, in full view of all the evidence and arguments mentioned above, even if the plaintiff A cannot be deemed to have a full decision-making ability such as normal person, the risk of his body, etc. was found to have a mental capacity to be recognizable by himself, but it was erroneous for the plaintiff A to commit suicide by putting the handout on the settling day, and such error was the cause of the accident in this case. The plaintiff B did not properly protect and supervise the plaintiff A even though he was aware that the plaintiff A had a sudden change in the depth on the day of the accident in advance. At the time of the accident in this case, the plaintiff A was unable to perform normal labor activities in the process of rehabilitation treatment, and the time of completion of treatment can not be easily presumed, and therefore, it is reasonable to consider the fair and reasonable ratio of damages for the defendants to share the damage to the situation that the plaintiff A was in need of opening in the state of others for a certain period of time.

4. Scope of liability for damages

(a) Actual income: 31,572,354 won;

1) Facts of recognition

(a) Gender and date of birth: Kborn female (which remains 58 years old and 5 months old);

B) Maximum working age: Until February 24, 2014, when the maximum working age reaches 60 years.

C) On the basis of the foregoing appraisal date, the Plaintiff’s remaining life expectancy was 25.5% of the normal person as of December 24, 2014, which is the physical appraisal date, and the average remaining life expectancy of the women aged 60 on the life table announced by the Statistics Korea National Statistical Office in 2013 was 26.96, the 25.5% of the anticipated life expectancy of the women aged 60 on the basis of the above appraisal date (=26.96 x 0.255) is about 6.87 years (= 26.96 x 0.255). Thus, the remaining life expectancy of the Plaintiff A is deemed to be 10,25 as the Plaintiffs seeks within the said scope.

D) Monetary assessment of job and operating ability: In light of the fact that the plaintiff A was under rehabilitation treatment with the right side symptoms at the time of the accident in this case, it is difficult to recognize that the plaintiff A had been engaged in economic activities in a state with normal labor ability in the future. However, such circumstance has already been considered in limiting the scope of the defendants' liability as seen earlier. As such, it is calculated based on the amount calculated by multiplying the normal urban daily wage by 22 days per month.

(e) Ratio of the loss of labor capacity: 100% of the loss of labor capacity and permanent disability due to falling under two parts, brain, and amb-B-4 (4) of the Mabrid Evaluation Table;

[Ground of recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 9-1 and 2, the result of the physical examination commissioned to the director of the High University Uniform Hospital in this Court, the rule of experience and the purport of the whole pleadings

2) Calculation: 31,572,354 won (in accordance with the discount method that deducts intermediary interest at the rate of 5/12 per month, the following table shall be the same as the present price at the time of August 13, 2012, which is the date of the instant accident, in accordance with the method that deducts intermediary interest at the rate of 5/12 per month. The period shall be calculated on a monthly basis in principle, and the amount below the won shall be discarded; hereinafter the same

A person shall be appointed.

(b) Medical expenses and subsidies: 209,288,387 won;

1) Wronh treatment costs: According to each statement of 70,885,857 Gap evidence 10 through 15, and 21 (including paper numbers), it is recognized that Plaintiff A spent KRW 70,885,857 for the treatment costs from August 13, 2012 to March 31, 2016; 2) future treatment costs and auxiliary equipment: KRW 138,402,530.

A) The treatment of the Plaintiff: (a) for the purpose of maintaining the present state caused by the instant disability and preventing, tracking, and managing the mergers that may arise in the future, the Plaintiff: (i) annual hospital treatment expenses of KRW 20,805,00, pharmacologic treatment expenses of KRW 392,010, landscape transplant expenses of KRW 33,867, blood examination expenses of KRW 1,316,568, 730,000, 241,008, 163,020, 163,020, and 549,096, chest X-ray examination expenses of KRW 427,440, 178,760, 2836,769, and 250,000 for first two years, for each additional year, for 160,500,000 per year, and 16,050,000,000.

B) Calculation: there is no evidence to prove that Plaintiff A received the above future treatment or spent the above auxiliary aid costs by the date of the closing of the instant argument. As from April 21, 2016, the medical expenses from April 201, which is the day following the date of the closing of the instant argument, are to be disbursed at one year, and the costs of each unit lease are to be disbursed at five years, but the expenses of each unit lease are to be disbursed by October 25, 2021, which is the date of the instant accident, according to the Hofman Calculation Act, the expenses are to be counted at the present price as of August 13, 2012, which is the date of the instant accident, and the sum is to be indicated below (i.e., KRW 114,383,25 won + KRW 23,787,885 won + KRW 231,390).

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

(c).

A person shall be appointed.

C.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute; the result of the physical appraisal commissioned by the President of the High University Uniforms' Office and the fact inquiry result; the purport of the entire pleadings

(c) Nursing expenses: 371,292,747 won;

(i) the necessity of the opening and the extent of the opening;

The plaintiff argued that the opening of 16 hours per day for an adult is necessary. According to the results of the fact-finding conducted by the head of the new university and the head of the high-level hospital of this court, according to the fact-finding conducted by the plaintiff A, the plaintiff's assertion that it is necessary to open another person's name for 16 hours a day excluding WIG hours, because it is impossible to independently perform basic daily life, such as meals, spathy, bath, bath, urine, and urology, due to the current state of vegetable human resources. However, when examining the contents of the above opening, rather than requiring continuous management and protection for 16 hours, it is deemed that the opening of the plaintiff's general name is sufficient to confirm the health state from time to time. Thus, it is reasonable to determine an adult's name for 12 hours a day. Accordingly, the plaintiff's assertion is justified within the scope of recognition as above.

2) In light of the degree and present status of the instant disability, it is reasonable to view that the opening of the Plaintiff A by a nursing officer or a family member, even from August 20, 2012 when the Plaintiff was hospitalized in a general sick room after the instant accident, had been completed from August 20, 201 to October 25, 2021, which is the date of the end of the life expectancy from the foregoing date, would be as listed in the following table if the opening of the nursing expense is calculated from October 25, 2021, and the aggregate amount would be 371,292,747 won (However, since the opening of the nursing expense for 29 days from January 8, 2013 to February 5, 2013, except for the opening of the said period, it shall be deemed as from September 18, 2012).

A person shall be appointed.

D. Limitation on liability

(i) Liability ratio: 15 percent;

2) Calculation of any property loss: 91,823,023 won [12,153,488 won [i.e., lost income of 31,572,354 won + Medical expenses and subsidies of 209,28,387 won + 371,292,747 won for nursing + 0.15,00 won]; e.g., consolation money].

1) Reasons for taking into account: the background and result of the instant accident, degree of negligence by the medical staff of the Defendant Hospital, the Plaintiff’s age, and other various circumstances shown in the instant argument.

2) Decision amount: Plaintiff A 10 million won, Plaintiff B 5 million won.

F. Sub-committee

Therefore, the Defendants are jointly liable to jointly compensate the Plaintiff for damages at the rate of KRW 101,823,023 (i.e., KRW 91,823,023 + KRW 10,023 + KRW 100,000 + KRW 5,000,000 for consolation money), and to compensate the Plaintiff B for damages calculated at the rate of 5% per annum as prescribed by the Civil Act from August 13, 2012, the date of the instant accident, which is the date of the instant judgment, until May 25, 2016, and until the date of full payment.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims against the defendants are justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are without merit, and they are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges of the presiding judge;

Judges Lee private-public;

Judges Go Jin-hun