2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

The Defendants jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff 1 the amount of KRW 30,00,000, KRW 10,000 per annum from March 29, 2002 to May 31, 2003; and the amount of KRW 5,00,000 per annum from the next day to the date of full payment to the date of KRW 20% per annum.

2. Purport of appeal

The part against the plaintiffs in the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked. The defendants jointly and severally pay to the plaintiff 1 the amount of KRW 17,000,000, KRW 8,000,000 to the plaintiff 2, KRW 4,000,000 to the plaintiff 3, and KRW 3,000,000 to the plaintiff 4, and each of them is 5% per annum from March 29, 2002 to May 31, 2003, and 20% per annum from the next day to the full payment date.

The Defendants: The part of the judgment of the first instance against the Defendants is revoked, and all of the plaintiffs' claims corresponding to the above revocation are dismissed.

A. Facts of recognition

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or they can be acknowledged by taking into account the following facts: Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 5, Gap evidence 6-1, 2, Gap evidence 7, Gap evidence 8-1, 2, Gap evidence 9, Gap evidence 10, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2, and the whole purport of the arguments in the first instance court's request for the appraisal of medical records to the director of Seoul University Hospital, and there is no counter-proof.

(1) Status of party

On March 29, 2002, the plaintiff 3 gave birth to the plaintiff 1 at the Mar. 29, 2002 Mapo-dong 248-1 (hereinafter referred to as the "the defendant hospital"), who is the father of the plaintiff 1, and the plaintiff 4 is the father of the plaintiff 1, and the defendant 2 is the doctor of the father of the defendant hospital and the father of the defendant hospital, who is in charge of the plaintiff 1's childbirth and post-delivery management.

(2) The pregnancy diagnosis at another hospital and the transfer to the defendant hospital;

(A) On August 23, 2001, Plaintiff 3 received a pregnancy diagnosis of 6 weeks in 'Masan father and National Assembly member' for the 6-day pregnancy period. On the same day, the Plaintiff 3 was confirmed to have undergone a blood station, red blood area size, required analysis, blood type test (ABO&R), blood type test (AB&H), typosis test, type B-type hepatitis screening test, and the early high-frequency test before childbirth. On August 24, 2001, the Plaintiff 3 was confirmed to have been cultivated [HBsAg (HBsg) in the case of continuous cultivation of hepatitis B-type hepatitis surface hBsg.].

(B) On February 21, 2002, Plaintiff 3 was transferred to the Defendant hospital with her father and her mother, her child department, and internal medicine, and was under Defendant 2’s diagnosis.

(3) Medical treatment at the Defendant Hospital

(A) On March 7, 2002, Plaintiff 3 was diagnosed by Defendant 2 again, and was hospitalized at Defendant Hospital on March 28, 2002 for only the leading portion, and gave birth to Plaintiff 1 on March 29, 2002, and was discharged on March 31, 2002. < Amended by Act No. 6694, Mar. 31, 2002>

(B) On March 7, 2002 and March 30, 2002, the Defendant Hospital conducted blood tests with Plaintiff 3 on two occasions with respect to the item, but the item was not included in the type B screening, and on February 21, 2002, on the medical record page, stating the fact that Plaintiff 3 was sentenced, the Defendant Hospital stated “P.Ncheck 32+5W L-lab WNL, LBB.GY”, and its meaning is “P.N.P. 32+5 WNL” on the medical record page, which included the fact that Plaintiff 3 was sentenced to, and on which February 21, 2002, the Defendant Hospital conducted Tririth inspection to verify whether the baby was pregnant in the crithn and Matribu.”

(C) The Defendant hospital conducted an analysis test in addition to the general blood test until delivery in addition to the general blood test, the exclusive blood test, and the primary ion test before delivery. However, there was no type B-type hepatitis screening test conducted, and there was no duplicate of the medical records of 'lesan women and Council members', and there is no record as to whether Plaintiff 3’s infection was infected with hepatitis B.

(4) After the birth of the Plaintiff 1, the progress of treatment and the determination of infection B

(A) On March 29, 2002, and April 29, 2002, the Defendant Hospital contacted Plaintiff 1 with each of the two-lane B in each of the two-lanes (Hepavax) (B-type C-type C-type C-type C-1-6).

(B) On September 9, 2002, Plaintiff 1 was hospitalized in the Mamasan Sysi Hospital due to symptoms such as heat, old soil, and snowhouse, etc. on September 29, 2002. On September 29, 2002, Plaintiff 1 was exposed to the third maritis B with the white maritis B on November 16, 2002. On September 8, 2002 and December 6, 2002, the result of the Mamasan Sysi Hospital’s examination was revealed that the surface hBsAg (HBsg) was infected with the hepatitis B and that it was infected with the hepatitis B.

(C) The plaintiff 1 is presumed to have been infected with hepatitis B at least five months before his birth.

(v)the relevant medical knowledge;

(A) As to mountain power management

Blood test items to be conducted by the mother at the first time before childbirth are ① Blood color, Hmacrate, blood plate, red blood cells, ② Blood type test (ABO, Rh), abnormal blood-related body test, ③ positive blood-related body test, ④ wind-proof body test, ⑤ type B infection test.

(B) As to hepatitis B

① The examination of Matern B’s Matern B’s Matern B’s Matern B’s Matern B’s Maternal disease rate varies depending on each country’s Matern B’s Matern B’s Maternal disease rate. In Korea, the country actively recommends the examination of Matern B’s Matern B’s Matern B’s Maternal disease rate. In Korea, the 17 people aged 30 years and over 100,00 have 16 people with male population, and the Matern B’s Matern B’s Matern. Considering these circumstances, the government recommends a childbirth agency to check the results of the examination of Matern B’s Matern B’s early or last ma

② In a case where the HBsAg is cultivated, the risk of the outbreak of the liver cancer is 5.7 times compared to those without both the HBsAg and the air body. At least 70% of the liver cancer is related to infection B, and at least 90% of the liver cancer is related to infection B, and in particular, at least 90% of the newborn infant infected with the main acid (referring to the period from 29 weeks to 1 week after her birth), is the holder of the surface paragraph (HBsAg) of the chronic hepatitis B, and the degree of 25% of which is 25% among them, dies from the liver or the liver cancer.

(C) The route of infection B

(1) HBsAg is found to be the blood, urine, urine, other amount, quality powder, urine, urine, urine, and other body fluids of infected B, and the course of infection B may be divided into horizontal and vertical infections.

(2) The term “hypitis” means that the main radio wave route is a hyp infection, which is infected by a family contact with a person who is cultivated by the HBsAg, administration of contaminated blood or blood products, abuse of medicines for beer, sexual contact, etc.

③ The vertical infection refers to the outbreak of infection to a newborn baby by being exposed to the infection B (HBsAg from a woman in childbed or from a woman in child delivery. This is the main infection route of a child in child’s main infection, which may be infected with the infection B during the re-infection period, but children may be infected with the infection B during the re-infection period. However, the infection rate during the re-infection period is very low, and most of them are presumed to have been infected with the hBsAg (HBsg) during the childbirth period. In particular, if a woman in child is cultivated at child delivery, it is presumed that there is little risk of dissemination by breast-feeding. In addition, if both the surface source (HBsAg) between hepatitis B and HBsAB(Bsebseg) (e) at the same time, the infection rate will be 7-90% of the newborn infant’s infection.

(D) As to the prevention of hepatitis B infection

① B형 간염 표면항원(HBsAg)이 양성인 산모의 분만시 태아의 수직감염을 예방하기 위하여는 능동면역과 수동면역을 동시에 실시하여야 하는데(능동면역이란 백신이나 톡소이드를 투여하여 항체 생성 및 면역 반응을 유도하는 것으로 B형 간염 백신이 대표적이고, 수동면역이란 이미 만들어진 항체를 투여하여 예방하는 방법으로서 B형 간염 면역글로불린 접종이 이에 해당한다.), 출생 후 12시간 이내 늦어도 7일 이내에 B형 간염백신(1차)과 B형 간염 면역글로불린(HBIG)을 각각 0.5㏄씩 근육주사로 접종하는 것이 추천된다.

② Within 12 hours after birth, it is deemed that the hypitis was prevented at a level of 85-95% if he/she is in contact with hypitis B and hypitis B, and that the hypitis was prevented at a level of 70-95% if he/she is in contact with only B-hypitis B without an immunologic hypitis within 24 hours after birth.

(3) If the mother's body becomes aware of whether the HBsAg is cultivated, it is recommended that the catching method begins within 12 hours after birth, and that the catching method is being taken as soon as possible (within 7 days at the latest) if it is possible to have the catching of hepatitis B, if it is possible to have the catching of catitis B due to nurturing the results of examination of the mother body.

(4) An outbreak, cryposis, etc. may occur due to the side effects of hepatitis B, and in particular, in the case of high fever, the vaccination may be deferred, and in general, unlike the first and second chalposiss, the third cyposiss, if necessary clinically, may cause any delay in the number of months, and if the third chyposiss are delayed, it may cause delay in the number of months, and it may cause delay in the third chyposiss as soon as possible without the need to re-enter.

(b) Markets:

(1) Comprehensively taking into account the above facts, in this case, where a newborn baby born from a woman born from a woman born from a woman who is a hepatitis B, and an immuno-type hepatitis B at the same time, it is possible to prevent the vertical hepatitis B from 85-95%, and if only two-type hepatitis B is individually contacted, the preventive effect is relatively high compared to those having the preventive effect at 70-95%, and in this case, where it is impossible to find other infections in addition to the vertical infection which is the main infection in the newborn baby, the plaintiff 1 born from the plaintiff 3, who is the hepatitis B, was born from the defendant hospital, who was born from the defendant hospital, without having the immuno-type hepatitis B immediately after its birth, due to the lack of preventive effect on the immuno-type hepatitis B infection in the process of giving birth, it is reasonable to deem that the defendant hospital was infected with hepatitis B in the process of giving birth.

On the other hand, Defendant 2, who conducted a medical examination of the mother who was in front of the childbirth, had a duty to prevent the vertical infection B by confirming the result of the child’s maritis B through the recording of the results of the examination of hepatitis B in accordance with the Government’s recommendation under the circumstances where the disease rate of hepatitis B is relatively high, and the risk of vertical infection B is very high. In addition, the blood examination conducted with Plaintiff 3 twice but omitted the items of the examination of hepatitis B, and the other hospital did not believe Plaintiff 3’s horses that there was no anything any error in the result of the examination, and did not confirm it through the recording of the results of the examination. As a result, Plaintiff 3 was not aware of the fact that Plaintiff 3 was a hepatitis B, which should have been conducted as a matter of course if Plaintiff 3 knew of the fact that he was the maritis B.

(2) Furthermore, in giving birth to Plaintiff 4, who is a large father, Plaintiff 3 transferred Plaintiff 4 to Plaintiff 4 by delivery at a general hospital and after childbirth management, taking into account the experience that Plaintiff 4 was not infected with water supply, and was diagnosed by Defendant hospital for three times before delivery. Each time, Defendant hospital notified the nurses affiliated with Defendant 2 and Defendant hospital that Plaintiff 4 was a patient with hepatitis B. On March 29, 2002, Plaintiff 1 was notified of this fact to the nurse in charge at the time of discharge on March 31, 2002, but there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise (According to Plaintiff 9’s statement), although Plaintiff 4 did not believe this fact, it was found that there was no other evidence to acknowledge that Plaintiff 2 and Defendant hospital’s nurse affiliated with Defendant hospital’s disease was an artificially diver for breast-feeding in the nursing record column instead of breast-feeding in the nursing record column.

(3) Judgment as to the defendants' assertion

(A) The Defendants asserted that Plaintiff 3 did not notify the nurses belonging to Defendant 2 and Defendant hospital of the fact that Plaintiff 3 was infected with B, and did not comply with the Defendant hospital’s request that it would bring about the pre-cativity test report at “lesan father and Council member,” and that the pre-cativity test was not conducted again within 3 months of pregnancy or post-delivery. Thus, the Defendants asserted that Plaintiff 3’s failure to conduct the pre-cativity test at Defendant hospital’s pre-cativity and Council member, and did not respond to the demand that Plaintiff 3 would bring about the examination report at another hospital, but the Defendant hospital did not necessarily confirm the result of the pre-cativity test at the place of the pre-cativity test at the place of the examination record, and that the Defendants did not know that the pre-cativity test was not conducted within 3 months of pregnancy or pre-cativity test at the place of the pre-cativity test at the place of the examination record, and thus, the Defendants’ assertion that the pre-cativity test was conducted within 3 months of the pre-cat infection.

(B) The Defendants shown that Plaintiff 1 was infected with B-B infection 1, 5th day after the birth of Plaintiff 1, and had no specific results of B-H infection B-2. As such, Plaintiff 1 cannot be deemed to have been infected with B-B-type infection, and Plaintiff 3 did not comply with Plaintiff 1’s third-class hepatitis B-type infection 1 on September 29, 2002, and Plaintiff 1 is deemed to have been infected with B-type infection. Even if Plaintiff 1 was infected with I-B-type infection, it is more likely that Plaintiff 1 was infected with I-15% of I-type infection, even if Plaintiff 2 was infected with B-type infection, and that there was no difference between Plaintiff 1’s new infection B-type infection 1 and Plaintiff 1’s new infection 1-type infection 5th day after it was found that there was no difference between Plaintiff 1 and Plaintiff 1’s new infection 1-type infection.

In addition, compared with the 70-95% in the case where he/she does not administer the spatitis B, the probability of the spatitis B, along with the spatitis B, is 85-95%, and compared with the 70-95% in the case where he/she does not administer the spatch, the rate of the spatitis B is reduced by 15%. As seen earlier, it is difficult to conclude that the Defendant hospital did not conduct the spatching of the spatitis B with the Plaintiff 1 and that there is no causal link between the Plaintiff 1 and the spatitis B infection. The aforementioned assertion by the Defendants is without merit.

(4) Therefore, Defendant 2, who is the doctor in charge of Plaintiff 3, is a tort, and Defendant 1, who is the employer of Defendant 2, is liable to compensate for the emotional distress suffered by the Plaintiffs 1 and their relatives due to their infections in Type B.

2. Scope of damages.

Furthermore, with regard to the amount of consolation money to be compensated by the Defendants, the following facts are examined: (a) Plaintiff 1 caused infection B; (b) Defendant hospital’s negligence degree; (c) Plaintiff 3 did not explicitly notify the doctor in charge of the Defendant hospital and the nurse in charge of the Plaintiff 3 as to the Plaintiff 1’s hepatitis B; (d) Plaintiff 1 was expected to have a considerable risk in the future due to hepatitis B; and (e) it seems that there would be many restrictions on social activities; (e) Plaintiff 1’s probability of preventing vertical infection is 85-95%, and even if Plaintiff 1 was in contact with I with I-type hepatitis B, the probability of preventing vertical infection is still 85-15%, and there is still a possibility of vertical infection; (e) Plaintiff 1’s degree of difference in vertical infection B; and (e) Plaintiff 1’s degree of difference in the number of consolation money is determined as 15% as the whole, and (e) Plaintiff 200% of the total amount of consolation money is determined as 30% 150% as the Plaintiff 201.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendants are obligated to claim against each plaintiff 1 about 13,00,000 won, 6,000,000 won for plaintiff 2,000,000 won for each of them, and 2,000,000 won for each of them from March 29, 2002, which is the date of plaintiff 1's birth, until October 13, 2004, which is the date of the judgment of the first instance, that the defendants dispute about the existence and scope of the obligation, and 5% per annum under the Civil Act until October 13, 2004, which is the date of the judgment of the first instance, and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment. Thus, the plaintiffs' claims are justified within the above scope of the above recognition, and each of the remaining claims shall be dismissed, and the judgment of the first instance is justifiable, and all of the plaintiffs and the defendants' appeals are dismissed.

Judges Park Jong-dae (Presiding Judge)