Part 7, Nos. 4 and 5 of the Court of First Instance 12, No. 6, and No. 11 of the High Court of First Instance as follows. (B) The Plaintiffs asserted that Defendant J planned and shared the instant operation with Defendant I, and that there was negligence in causing the death of the deceased due to the anesthesia of the propoland which is over a long time jointly with other Defendants.

2) In the process of the instant surgery, it is difficult to see that propool was excessively administered to the Deceased, and the fact that medical specialists did not participate in the instant surgery or did not have a separate medical team for surveillance alone cannot be deemed as negligence on the part of the Defendant hospital. The medical team’s negligence at the Defendant hospital neglected the duty to observe the progress and take measures after the occurrence of emergency situations at the time of the instant third surgery, as above. There is no evidence to prove otherwise that the instant surgery plan established by the Defendant hospital did not reach the level of normative medical practice being performed in the clinical medical field. As long as the instant surgery plan established by the Defendant hospital was transferred to Defendant I after the second surgery, and was performed in the surgery room after the second surgery, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiffs participated in the negligence of the Defendant hospital at the time of the instant third surgery after the lapse of more than two hours. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs’ claim against the Defendant hospital for damages against the Defendant 1 through 17th of the instant surgery cannot be deemed as having been established as follows.