209Gahap8447 (Definition of principal action) Damage, etc.

209Gahap24825 (Counterclaim medical expenses)

1. KimA (50 years old, female);

2. United StatesA1 (48 years old, South Korea)

3. United StatesA2 (77 years old, female)

this B (55 years old, South)

September 29, 2010

October 20, 2010

1. A. The Defendant (Counterclaim) pays to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) 22,893,077 won, Plaintiff U.S. 1, and U.S. 2 each amount of KRW 500,000 per annum from May 25, 2006 to October 20, 2010, and 20% per annum from the next day to the full payment date;

B. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) Kim Jong-A shall pay to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) 5,475,00 won with 5% per annum from December 16, 2009 to October 20, 2010, and 20% per annum from the next day to the full payment date.

2. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s remaining main claim, the plaintiff's remaining main claim, the plaintiff's UA1 and UA2's remaining main claim, and the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s remaining main claim are dismissed, respectively.

3. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) Kim1, Plaintiff UA2, and the remainder, respectively, by aggregating the principal lawsuit and the counterclaim.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

1. The Defendant (hereinafter “Defendant”) pays to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter “Plaintiff”) 17,94,378 won, gold 10,000,000 won to Plaintiff U.S. 1, gold 3,000,000 won to Plaintiff U.S. 2 from May 25, 2006 until the delivery date of a duplicate of the complaint of this case, and 5% per annum from the next day to the full payment date of the complaint of this case.

2. Counterclaim;

Plaintiff Kim Yong-A shall pay to the Defendant a sum of KRW 8,500,000 and 20% per annum from the day following the service of a copy of the counterclaim of this case to the day of full payment.

1. Determination on the main claim

(a) Facts of recognition;

(1) Relationship between the Parties

In the dental clinic operated by the defendant (hereinafter referred to as "the defendant's clinic"), the plaintiff Kim Jong-A is a person who received a clinical surgery from the defendant, etc. and received treatment accordingly, and the plaintiff's husband and the plaintiff's UA2 are his father and the plaintiff's UA2 are his father.

(2) The status at which Plaintiff Kim A’s Defendant Council member was admitted

원고 김A는 2003. 4. 4. 피고 의원에 내원하여 치아의 심한 동요로 인한 저작 불편감을 호소하였는데, 당시 상악의 경우 좌우측 제2 대구치(大日齒, 큰 어금니)와 좌측 견치(犬齒, 송곳니) 외에 다른 치아를 상실하여 부분의치(틀니)를 한 상태였고, 하악의 경우 전치부 치아에 심한 동요도가 있고, 소구치(小白齒, 작은 어금니)부 외에 다른 치아를 상실한 상태였으며, 치은(잇몸)에 심한 염증과 치주조직에 깊은 치주낭(치은과 치면 사이에 존재하는 정상적으로는 0.5~2mm 홈인 치은열구가 병적으로 깊어진 상태)이 있는 상태였다.

(3) Treatment progress in Defendant Council members

(A) The procedures, etc. for the operation of eggs

The plaintiff Kim Jong-A was to undergo a structural transplantation operation, a flapt operation, a flapt operation, etc. from the defendant.

From April 14, 2003 to July 2, 2004 of the same year, the defendant performed a charnel surgery by mixing the above plaintiff's 9 amak, 9 amak amaks, and the above plaintiff's blood-concentrating blood cells, and conducted a amaking surgery in the amaking type. The defendant produced the temporary amaking amak from December 12, 2003 to July 7, 2004, and attached three times a stability test on the amaks isolated from September 7, 2004 to April 6, 2005. The defendant manufactured the amaking amaking in the amaking type from May 17, 2005 to May 25, 2006.

In addition, from the time of the surgery of the organ transplant, the defendant has been providing a commuting treatment to the upper right side of the river, to the upper right side of the river, to the upper right side of the river, to the upper right side of the river, to the second mouth, to the upper right side of the 2 Daegu dental department, etc.

(B) The later process

However, on June 8, 2006, the above plaintiff's above plaintiff's upper garreging, the defendant re- attached it. From August 22, 2006 to February 16, 2007, the garreging on the left side of the upper garreging, and the garreging on the upper garreging from the upper garreging surface to the 1st Daegu garreging surface were re- attached three times. After that, on May 4, 2007, when the garreging of the garreging body part of the garreging body from the upper garreging body, the defendant explained that the garreging body should be carried out together with the treatment, and the garreging body of the garreging body, the garreging body of the first garreging body was found to be carried out again on the 20th garreging body of the first garreging body of the 20.

(4) On February 20, 2009, the above Plaintiff, who was diagnosed by a university dental hospital and △△ Hospital, was diagnosed by a poppy in the upper part of the poppy in the upper part of the poppy. On March 4, 2009, the dental hospital and the above Plaintiff was diagnosed by a poppy in the upper part of the poppy in the lower part of the poppy, the poppy in the upper part of the poppy, and the poppy in the upper part of the poppy. On March 9, 2009, the Plaintiff was diagnosed by a poppy in the upper part of the poppy in the upper part of the university dental hospital, and was diagnosed by a temporary poppy in the upper part of the poppy in the upper part of the poppy. On March 23, 2009 of the same year, the above hospital was diagnosed by a temporary poppy in the upper part of the poppy.

(5) In the case of Plaintiff KimA’s current state, there are opinions on salting, such as the discovery and scoping of the dental body around the right stalut, the shoulder, and the left stalute, and the left stalut around the stalute (no such an stalute of an isolated stalut), the average depth of not less than 5mm, and the escape and scoping of the stalute around the stalute, and the staluting of the stalute, and the average average 1/2 degree of vertical scopic absorption was shown on the part of the entire staluted part of the nine stalut of the stalute of the stalut, and there is inconvenience such as the difficulty of noise. On the contrary, it is stable in the case of a stalute.

(6) Relevant medical knowledge

(A) A wide range of procedures may be performed for the adaptation certificate of a marry operation, gold donation telegraph, and mentally healthy adults’ emotional distression. However, in the case of a severe mentally ill person (mental disorder), a patient with a high expectation, a patient with a high congenital immunodeficiencydeficiency disorder, a patient with severe smoking and excessive drinking, a patient with high progress malicious cancer, and a patient who has undergone radioactive therapy in the mouth, a person with a marctic disorder, and a patient with a marc disorder.

In the event that the state of the bee and the bee and the bee and the bee and the bee and the bee and the bee and the bee and the bee and the bee and the bee and the bee and the bee and the bee and the bee and the bee and the bee and the bee and the bee and the bee and the bee and the bee and the bee and the bee and the bee and the bee and the bee and the bee and the bee and the bee and the bee and the bee and the bee and the bee and the bee and the bee and the bee and the bee and the bee and the bee and the bee ande are

(B) In the case of a ductal surgery, the ductal period is longer required than the ductal period, and there may be differences in the ductal period depending on whether the ductal body is bad, or whether the ductal body is used. Although the use of the ductal body is likely to result, the ductal body is limited to the amount of ductal body that can be collected in light of the ductal ductal ductal ductal ductal ductal ductal dus and ductal dus can be used only when the arctal body is used.

(C) Heatitis and cryptitis are diseases in a broad range of ginging that accompany the destruction of a stoves around the stove, as a result of the process of the stoveitis. In the mouth, permanent stuffs remain in the mouth, and they may always be put in the stoves organization along with food residues and at all times cause the stoves infection.

In order to conduct a crypting procedure where salt is severe, it is recommended that salt is burned, and that the relevant crypting procedure should be performed by giving priority to salt treatment, and that the relevant crypting procedure should be conducted by planting salt more than three to six weeks after the outbreak of the relevant cryping, and that the relevant cryping procedure should be conducted by cultivating salt, and that it is recommended that the relevant cryping procedure should be conducted by reducing salt by treating salt first even in cases where cryping the relevant cryp and planting the relevant cryping on another cryping part.If the cryping of the cryp is sufficient without salt, it is also recommended that the cryping be

The cause of the Heart infection around the heart is caused by the fluore salt in the form of fluore or isolated fluore salt, or excessive fluority. In a case where the fluore is isolated into an inferior fluor, where it is difficult to distribute and deliver the entire load load with the location of the fluore, or the total load of the isolated fluor, or where it is in an inappropriate condition related to abnormal functions of the fluore, such as bad fluor, if the structure of the fluore structure is not accurately consistent with the fluor, it may be caused by the process of the fluore planting or the process of the fluoreing, and even though the procedure was performed properly, it may be caused by the lack of oral management.

In the case of a patient who can be seen as a flachiing stone, the patient shall be careful at the time of use after the completion of the flachiing, and the doctor to perform the operation shall be able to apply the ordinary flachiing type, but it is recommended that the flachi support type should be applied after cutting the number of flachiing. The patient shall immediately remove the flachiing flachiing through the flachiing bruing and manage it immediately after the operation after the operation, and the doctor to perform the operation shall conduct regular medical examination and management. When the early flachiing is conducted, the flachiing and consent may occur. This is the fact that the flachiing has been caused by the flachiing in the part, which is the main cause of the flachiing around the flachiing.

(D) Whether the success and failure of the crypt operation were made

Although the success and failure criteria for each academic person are different, in order to be evaluated as successful in the process of screening, there shall be no radiation dose in the artificial insemination, and there shall be no dynamics. The vertical charnel room first one year shall not exceed 1mm, and thereafter not more than 0.2mm, and there shall be no continuous pain or infection reduction inconvenience, and there shall be no inconvenience for not less than infection (the depth of the crop bags shall be different depending on the thickness of the croping upper part, the degree of three meters shall not exceed 4 meters). On the contrary, if the crop of not more than 00m from power of not more than 50g, or if the cropology is observed clinically, it shall not be deemed that the overall assessment of the croping/out of the reduction and rapid treatment of the crop and rapid treatment of the crop, the overall assessment and treatment of the cropulatory part of the competent City/Do shall not be able to support the cropulatory or exmosome.

[인정근거 : 다툼 없는 사실, 갑 제1 내지 3, 5 내지 11호증(가지번호 있는 것은 가지.번호 포함, 이하 같다), 을 제1 내지 6호증의 각 기재 및 영상, 이 법원의 대학교부속 ▲병원에 대한 신체감정촉탁결과, 이 법원의 ■대학교의료원에 대한 진료감정촉탁 결과, 이 법원의 △병원, 대학교치과병원, ◆대학교부속 ▲ 병원에 대한 각 사실조회 결과, 변론 전체의 취지]

B. Occurrence of liability for damages

(1) The parties' assertion

(A) The plaintiffs

The Defendant, in the case of Plaintiff KimA, performed a crypting process and post-management of the crypting process, despite the fact that the crypting process is inappropriate, and did not provide sufficient treatment for the crypting salt before the process. In addition, the Defendant used the crypting process, which is not a crypting surgery, and applied the crypting process and the angle to the crypting process. In addition, the Defendant did not properly manage the Plaintiff, who had the crypting process, by cutting the crypting number to prevent crypting salt, even though the crypting process was conducted in the form of the crypting crypting crypting crypting crypting crypting crypting crypting crypting crypting crypting crypting crypting crypting crypting cryping.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiffs for damages due to the above negligence.

(B) Even in a case where the Defendant’s crypt steel is lacking or is not good, it is possible to perform crypt surgery through the crypt transplantation, ostition recovery, etc., and the Defendant was fully able to perform crypt surgery before the crypt surgery, and the Defendant performed the crypt operation by mixing the crypt with the crypt and the crypt, as well as by mixing the crypt, and performed the cryp operation with the correct direction and angle, and performed the cryp treatment and the cryp treatment for the prevention of infection before and after the procedure. The above Plaintiff’s cryption condition, such as the cryp steel cryp and the crypitis, was not negligent for the Defendant, by failing to properly perform the cryp management, such as the cryposis and the cryposis, etc.

(2) Determination

(A) In light of the following circumstances acknowledged based on the aforementioned facts and evidence, where the condition of the dental aggregate is inferior, it is possible to re-establish it through a peltory, and where it is possible to re-establish it through a peltory, if it is not severe to the degree of inappropriate arrangement or space of the peltory, it is possible to re-establish it through a peltory. In the case of a peltory operation, the amount of peltory is limited to the size of the peltory, so there are many cases where the peltory can be used in mixing with the stetory or peltory, depending on the case, it may be used, and in view of the fact that the defendant performed the peltory operation by using the peltory and peltory, the defendant cannot be readily concluded to have any negligence on the part of the peltory operation, and there is no evidence that there is no negligence on the part of the defendant that the peltory operation was performed by the defendant.

(B) However, it is acknowledged as follows based on the evidence mentioned above, i.e., the above plaintiff's franchisium at the time of the plaintiff's franchisium, and in which case franchisium treatment should take precedence over franchisium treatment. The defendant started franchisium treatment before franchisium surgery on April 14, 2003; the above plaintiff's franchisium franchisium and low franchisium can occur between franchisium and franchisium; thus, in light of the above fact that the plaintiff's franchisium did not perform the above franchisium treatment by reducing the number of franchisium, or the defendant's franchisium treatment by negligence, which caused excessive franchisium treatment to the plaintiff's above franchisium's franchisium treatment to the extent that the above plaintiff's franchisium'sium'sium treatment.

(C) In addition, in general, a doctor has a duty to explain the patient or his/her legal representative about the symptoms of a disease, the content and necessity of the treatment method, the potential risk of occurrence, etc. when he/she conducts a medical act which is likely to cause a bad result, and to allow the patient to choose whether to receive the medical act or not, by sufficiently comparing the patient's necessity or risk. According to each of the above evidence, the defendant provided the above plaintiff with an explanation of the origin points, pros and cons, hums, hums, skins, hums, infections, etc. of the Food and Drug Act, and explained the importance of the management of gromatics throughout several times, and provided an brush education. According to the above acknowledged facts, the defendant sufficiently explained the content and risk of the grosing procedure, other treatment methods and advantages, etc., and thus, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

C. Limitation on liability for damages

In light of the fact that the above plaintiff Kim Kim-A's malone structure and the flag decoration of the plaintiff Kim-A and neglecting the management of artificial brut were caused by the plaintiff's current disability, etc., even if the medical accident of this case occurred due to the defendant's negligence, it violates the principle of equity in light of the characteristics of medical practice and the degree of danger, etc., to impose only all damages incurred to the defendant. Considering the above circumstances in calculating the amount of damages that the defendant should compensate for, it is consistent with the ideology of the damage compensation system that provides the fair and reasonable burden as the guiding principle. Thus, the defendant's compensation liability should be limited to 50%.

D. Scope of damages

(1) Expenses for medical treatment;

① Medical expenses in the amount of KRW 40,90,000 paid to Defendant Council members, KRW 20,450,000 for medical expenses in relation to malicious surgery in relation to the instant medical malpractice

(2) A gold 632,960 won paid to a university dental hospital.

(3) Total amount of KRW 21,082,960

[Ground of recognition: The fact that there is no dispute, the result of the fact inquiry into the university dental hospital of this court] (In addition, the plaintiff KimA also sought payment of KRW 20,450,000 for the medical expenses related to the Haak Maak Maak Ma, ② the amount of KRW 150,162 for the medical expenses incurred in the treatment of Manak Maul Madul Madul Madul Madul Madul Madul, etc., but there is no evidence to prove that the defendant's negligence in the procedure of the Madul Madul Madul Madul Madul, or that there was a causal relationship between the occurrence of the above Madul Madul Madul

(2) Costs of future treatment

(a)The details and amount

(1) Two million won in the amount of medical expenses for art. 200,000 won

2. Seven million won for medical expenses related to the production of the upper relic (i.e., one million won per sheet x seven for each relic x seven)

③ KRW 8,888,888 for medical expenses related to the re-establishment of two eggs (i.e., 40 million won/ nine X 2, and less than KRW 17,888,888 won in total (hereinafter the same shall apply)

[인정근거: 이 법원의 ◆대학교부속 ▲병원에 대한 신체감정촉탁결과, 이 법원의 ◆대 학교부속 ▲병원에 대한 사실조회결과](원고 김A는 임플란트가 탈락되지 아니한 상악 7개의 경우도 임플란트 재식립이 필요하므로 상악 9개의 임플란트 재식립 비용 금 4,000만 원과 가철성 국소의치비용 500만 원의 지급을 구하나, 임플란트가 탈락하지 아니한 위 7개의 경우 임플란트의 동요도가 없고, 그럴 경우 외과적 치료를 우선적으로 시행하여야 하는바, 이 법원의 대학 교부속 ▲병원에 대한 신체감정촉탁결과, 이 법원의 대학교치과병원에 대한 사실조회결과만으로는 위 7개의 경우 임플란트 재식립이 필요하다거나 위에서 인정한 것 외에 가철성 국소의치가 필요하다는 점을 인정하기 부족하고 달리 이를 인정할 증거가 없으므로, 이를 전제로 한 위 주장은 이유 없다)

(B) Since there is no evidence that the above Plaintiff paid the above future medical expenses by the closing date of the argument in this case, it shall be deemed that it was temporarily paid on the day following the closing date of the argument in this case for convenience and that it was calculated based on May 25, 2006, which was at the time of the medical accident in this case, pursuant to the Hofmanial Calculation Act, KRW 14,703,195 as indicated in the following calculation table.

A person shall be appointed.

(3) Limitation of liability

(A) The Plaintiff’s liability ratio: 50%

(B) calculated tax amounting to KRW 35,786,155 (i.e., 21,082,960 + KRW 14,703,195) X50% = 17,893,077

(4) Consolation money

(A) The background and result of the instant accident, the Defendant’s ground for limitation of liability, the gender and age of Plaintiff KimA, the relationship with the said Plaintiff and other Plaintiffs, and all other circumstances revealed in the instant argument, etc.

(b) the amount determined;

Plaintiff Kim-A: 5 million won

Plaintiff UA1, U.S.A2: each gold of KRW 500,000. Sub-satis

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff KimA 22,893,077 won (i.e., 17,893,077 won in property damage + 5 million won in consolation money), the plaintiff UA1, and U.S. 2 respectively for 50,000 won in consolation money, and for 50,000 won in consolation money for each of them from May 25, 2006, which is the medical accident date of this case, to the extent that it is reasonable for the defendant to resist the existence and scope of his/her duty of performance from May 20, 206 until October 20, 200, which is the date of the decision of this case, 5% per annum under the Civil Act and 20% damages for delay from the following day to the date of full payment.

2. Judgment on the counterclaim

A. The following facts may be acknowledged by the parties’ lack of dispute between them, or by the overall purport of evidence and pleading.

(1) The above plaintiff paid to the defendant a sum of KRW 40 million each on April 14, 2003, July 2, 2003, and August 14, 2003, and August 16, 2005, respectively, of KRW 40 million out of the medical expenses related to the crypt treatment. The defendant exempted part of the above medical expenses and exempted the remainder of the unpaid medical expenses from KRW 5 million, and the amount of KRW 2.5 million out of which is related to the crypt treatment of the medical accident of this case.

(2) On May 30, 2007, the above plaintiff paid the total of KRW 450,000 won on May 30, 2007, KRW 1.355 million on food treatment expenses, KRW 50,000 on December 27, 2007, KRW 400,000 on January 17, 2008, KRW 900,000 on the aggregate of KRW 2,000 on November 24, 2008, not paying KRW 2,450,000 on the aggregate of KRW 2,000 on food treatment expenses. The plaintiff did not pay KRW 1 million on July 27, 2007 and KRW 1 million on January 17, 2008 on each of the above treatment expenses.

B. According to the above facts, barring any special circumstance, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay KRW 5,75,00 in the sum of KRW 2,50,000,000,000,000,000,000 in total of KRW 5,975,000,000,000,000,000 for music-related treatment expenses not related to the instant medical case, and KRW 2,50,000,00,000,000,000,000 in total of KRW 5,975,000,000,000,000 for music-related treatment expenses not related to the instant medical case.

C. The above plaintiff's defense is that the above plaintiff had already extinguished the prescription period. Thus, the plaintiff's defense of the above plaintiff is clear in the record that the plaintiff's claim for medical expenses related to the crypt procedure was filed on December 8, 2009, after the time limit for payment of the above medical expenses had not been disputed between the parties, and the counterclaim of this case was filed on May 25, 2006, when three years had passed since the time limit for payment under Article 163 of the Civil Code was passed since the counter-claim of this case. However, according to the above evidence, the above plaintiff can be acknowledged the fact that the above plaintiff recognized the existence of the liability for medical expenses related to the crypt procedure when paying 4 million won for the crypt treatment expenses on January 17, 2008, since the above plaintiff approved the above debt, and thus the above plaintiff's defense was suspended.

D. Sub-determination

Therefore, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay to the Defendant damages for delay at each rate of 5% per annum as stipulated by the Civil Act and 20% per annum as stipulated by the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day after the delivery of a copy of the counterclaim of this case to the Defendant from December 16, 2009, which is the day following the delivery of a copy of the counterclaim of this case.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff KimA's principal lawsuit, the plaintiffs' claims, and the defendant's counterclaim are accepted within the scope of the above recognition. The plaintiff KimA's remaining principal lawsuit, the plaintiffs' remaining principal claim, and the defendant's remaining counterclaim are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges of the presiding judge, Kim Dong-ho

Judges Senior Byung-in

Judges Kim Gin-man