National Health Insurance Corporation

A medical corporation, Samsung Medical Foundation (Attorney Yoon Jae-soo et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

May 13, 2020

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2018Da5231225 Decided May 31, 2019

1. In accordance with the expansion of the purport of the claim by this court, the judgment of the first instance is modified as follows.

(a) The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 174,118,566 won and 51,099,438 won among them, 27,804,168 won, interest rate of 5% per annum from October 12, 2018 to May 31, 2019 for 21,095,448 won, and 15% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment; interest rate of 24,328,76 won per annum from July 11, 2019 to the date of full payment; interest rate of 22,213,014 won per annum from the following day to the date of full payment; and interest rate of 15% per annum from the date of full payment to the date of full payment; and interest rate of 21,275,714 won to 20% per annum from the date of full payment to the date of full payment; and interest rate of 20% per annum from 25,27214.21.

B. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

2. Of the total litigation costs, 40% is borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder 60% is borne by the Defendant, respectively.

3. Paragraph 1(a) of this Article may be provisionally executed.

1. Purport of claim

With respect to the Plaintiff KRW 290,197,610 and KRW 85,165,730 per annum from July 20, 2018 to the date of delivery of a duplicate of the complaint in this case, KRW 5% per annum from October 12, 2018 to December 5, 2018; KRW 35,159,080 per annum from the date of delivery of a duplicate of the claim in this case; KRW 5% per annum from the date of delivery of a duplicate of the claim in this case; KRW 15% per annum from the date of delivery of a copy of the claim in this case; KRW 20,547,960 until March 13, 2019 to the date of delivery of a duplicate of the claim in this case; KRW 5% per annum from the date of delivery of a copy of the claim in this case to 25% per annum; and KRW 10,547,960 from the date of completion of the claim in this case to 219.

2. Purport of appeal

A. The plaintiff

(1) The part against the plaintiff falling under the part of the first instance judgment against which payment is ordered under the order shall be revoked. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 6,66,036 won and 34,066,292 won with the amount of 18,536,112 won from July 20, 2018 to October 12, 2018, 14,063,632 won with the amount of 5% per annum from February 9, 2019 to the delivery date of a copy of each complaint of this case, and 12% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

B. Defendant

Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the defendant shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to that part shall be dismissed.

1. Facts of recognition;

The reasoning for this part is as follows: (a) the court added the “written evidence Nos. 9 through 14,” and Nonparty 2’s testimony to the “founded ground for recognition” of the judgment of the first instance; and (b) the reasoning of the first instance judgment is the same as that of the first instance judgment, except for the modification as set forth below, and thus, (c) this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

【Revisioned Part】

D. The Plaintiff paid KRW 85,165,730, as the GEPS’s contribution to the medical expenses incurred in the instant accident until July 19, 2018, and KRW 46,340,280, and thereafter, KRW 35,159,080 until February 8, 2019, and thereafter KRW 40,547,960 until July 10, 2019, and thereafter KRW 37,021,690 until November 12, 2019, and KRW 45,962,870 until April 10, 2020.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The parties' assertion

The Plaintiff asserted that, at the time, Nonparty 1 was in the surface of the water, and that the instant accident was caused by the negligence in the management of the Defendant Hospital. The Defendant asserted that the Defendant: (a) the Defendant hospital classified Nonparty 1 as a patient at high risk group; and (b) made best efforts to prevent abortion; (c) so, the Defendant hospital did not err in the Defendant Hospital regarding the instant accident.

B. Determination

1) The facts acknowledged earlier, and all the evidence revealed in the oral argument of this case, it cannot be clearly confirmed that Non-party 1 was deprived of the course, and whether the instant abortion accident occurred. However, the following circumstances acknowledged by the aforementioned evidence, namely, there is no evidence to deem that Non-party 1 was in the surface of the water at the time of the instant abortion accident, and that Non-party 1 had committed dangerous acts, such as causing the body from the bed, etc.; ② the Defendant asserted that Non-party 1 had been applied the distress level to Non-Party 1 at the time of the instant abortion accident. If the above safety level is applied properly, Non-party 1 did not move to the head of the hospital to escape from the bed, the width of Non-Party 1’s body was wide, and it appears that Non-party 1 was difficult to escape from the bed and applied to Non-Party 1’s abortion accident at the time of the instant accident, even if Non-Party 3 did not have been aware that the risk was not applied to the above patient’s safety level.

2) However, as seen earlier, the specific circumstance of the accident is somewhat unclear, the defendant hospital appears to have taken considerable measures to prevent the relevant accident, and the non-party 1 appears to have increased the degree of damage caused by the instant accident due to the low blood response, etc., by taking into account the various circumstances revealed in the argument of the instant case, the defendant's liability for damages is limited to 60%.

3) Therefore, the Defendant’s reimbursement amount of KRW 174,118,56 (290,197,610 x 0.6) and KRW 51,09,438 (i.e., KRW 85,165,70 x 0.6) from July 20, 2018; KRW 27,804,168 (i.e., KRW 46,340 x 0.6) from October 12, 2018; KRW 21,095,48 (i.e., KRW 35,159,00 x 0.6 x 0.6 x 16% of the legal interest rates prescribed by Presidential Decree No. 28195, Feb. 9, 2019; and (ii) the Defendant’s reimbursement of damages at the rate of KRW 46.75% of the total annual interest rates prescribed by Presidential Decree No. 9715, May 19, 2019.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims shall be dismissed as it is without merit. Thus, the judgment of the court of first instance, including the claim extended at the appellate court, shall be modified as the disposition of the court of first instance, and both the plaintiff and the defendant's appeal

Judges Go Il-il (Presiding Judge)

1) Comprehensively considering the purport of the entire pleadings in the Plaintiff’s petition of appeal, the purport of the Plaintiff’s appeal shall be determined accordingly.

2) In full view of the contents of the Defendant’s petition of appeal and the purport of the Defendant’s appeal, the Defendant’s appeal will be decided accordingly.