[2] The case holding that the judgment below which recognized the liability of consolation money for the medical personnel of the medical foundation Eul on the ground that it is difficult to view that the medical personnel of the medical foundation of the medical foundation of the medical foundation of the medical foundation of the medical foundation of the medical foundation of the medical foundation of the medical foundation of the medical foundation of the medical foundation of the medical foundation of the medical foundation of the medical foundation of the medical foundation of the medical foundation of the medical foundation of the medical foundation of the medical foundation of the medical foundation of the medical foundation of the medical foundation of the medical foundation of the medical foundation of the medical foundation of the medical foundation of the medical foundation of the medical foundation of the medical foundation of the hospital of the hospital of the hospital of the Republic of Korea was erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, although it is difficult to view that the medical personnel of the medical foundation of the medical foundation of the medical foundation of the medical foundation of the medical foundation

However, in a case where the degree of violation of the duty of care is deemed to have performed a remarkably unfaithful medical treatment as much as the level of tolerance exceeds the limit of tolerance in light of the general public’s wife, the tort itself as a tort may be constituted, and thereby, the patient or his family may be ordered to compensate for consolation money for mental suffering. In this case, the victim who asserts that the medical treatment was remarkably unfaithful enough to exceed the limit of tolerance must prove that the victim argued for

[2] The case holding that the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles in a case where Gap was liable for consolation money of Eul Medical Foundation, even if Gap had delayed proper medical treatment and inspection after the second internal organs, and did not reach the extent that it would be deemed that Eul had conducted a remarkably unfaithful medical treatment beyond the ordinary citizen's tolerance limit, in light of all circumstances such as the result of medical record appraisal, it is difficult to view that Byung hospital medical personnel erred in the misapprehension of legal principles in the misapprehension of legal principles, even though it was difficult to view that Byung hospital medical personnel conducted a remarkably unfaithful medical treatment beyond the ordinary citizen's tolerance limit, in light of all the circumstances, such as the result of medical record appraisal, etc.

A. The part on the defendant medical corporation ○○ Medical Foundation

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion that ○○ Hospital (hereinafter “○○ Hospital”) operated by the Defendant medical corporation ○○○○○○○○ Foundation (hereinafter “○○ Medical Foundation”) (hereinafter “○○ Hospital”) caused the occurrence of a malicious psychotropic chronology after excessively administering Mexico to the deceased. The medical personnel at ○○ Hospital cannot be deemed to have excessively administered Mexico, and it is difficult to deem that the medical personnel at ○○ Hospital did not violate the recommended interval of medication, and even if it was administered in excess of the maximum daily usage of Mexico, it is difficult to view the symptoms attributable to the deceased as caused by the excessive administration of Mexico chronology.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the record, the lower court did not err in its judgment by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation

B. The part concerning the defendant school foundation's private teaching institute

The plaintiff did not state a few grounds for appeal in the petition of appeal and did not submit a statement of grounds for appeal within the statutory period.

2. As to the ground of appeal by Defendant ○○ Medical Foundation

A. The instant case is the case where the Deceased was born twice at the time of approximately seven hours, and the Deceased was born at the ○○ Hospital. As seen in the Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal, the lower court did not recognize that there was negligence by the medical staff of the ○ Hospital at the time of the first internal organs of the Deceased. As to the time when the Deceased was the second internal organs of the deceased, the lower court denied proximate causal relation between the negligence and the bad result (the bad result) of the Deceased’s death while recognizing that the medical staff of the ○ Hospital was negligent in performing his duty of care in the medical care.

Accordingly, the lower court determined that Defendant ○○ Medical Foundation has a duty to compensate for mental suffering suffered by the Deceased, the Plaintiff, and Nonparty 1. Based on the foregoing, it was reasonable to view that the nurse did not report the deceased’s condition to ○○ Hospital and did not take any measures until the deceased’s loss of consciousness, thereby preventing the deceased from being provided with an opportunity for treatment by finding out the causes of cerebrovascular that occurred on the deceased’s part of the wife, as it goes beyond the tolerance limit.

B. Medical professionals are obliged to take the best measures to prevent risks arising from the patient’s specific symptoms or circumstances due to the nature of medical practice. If a medical personnel fails to fulfill his/her duty of care against the patient’s expectation, it shall be deemed that the medical personnel breached the duty of care. However, in cases where proximate causal link is not acknowledged between such breach of duty of care and the bad result (the result) caused to the patient, the medical personnel may not seek compensation for the damages

However, in a case where the degree of violation of the duty of care is deemed to have performed a remarkably unfaithful medical treatment as much as the level of acceptance limit in light of the general public’s wife, it can constitute a tort itself and thereby order compensation for mental suffering suffered by the patient or his/her family. In such a case, the victim who asserts the establishment of a tort must prove that he/she provided a remarkably unfaithful medical treatment beyond the acceptance limit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2004Da61402, Sept. 28, 2006; 2013Da77294, Feb. 13, 2014).

C. Review of the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record reveals the following facts.

1) The Deceased was a man of approximately 22 years of age who was enrolled in the △△△△ University located in Busan Metropolitan City. The Deceased complained of the symptoms of 20:22 on February 18, 201, and was placed in the first-lane ○○ Hospital emergency room. As a result of blood examination, the results of the blood examination showed that the ○○ Hospital’s medical team administered the Mexico, which is the Gutopy, to the Deceased, and the Deceased returned to 21:43, the Deceased returned to △△△△△△ Hospital.

2) On February 19, 2011, the Deceased complained of symptoms such as 04:32 first, and applied two-lanes in the emergency room of the ○○ Hospital. Although the ○ Hospital’s medical team took measures, such as adding Mexico to the Deceased, smoking heart, and supplying oxygen, the Deceased complained of respiratory difficulty and clothes, and the euthanming of the euthanasasia was closed. The medical team of the ○○ Hospital conducted a concentrated observation on the Deceased, without clearly expressing his intention from 05:50.50.

3) A doctor on duty in an emergency room reported the state of mixed water of the Deceased 07:45, and took a computer-to-story shooting (CT:comed pamhy) on brain 07:55, and immediately took measures, such as moving to a middle patient room and conducting blood tests. As a result of brain weather (CT), there was no abnormal opinion on the Deceased.

4) In the medical record appraisal commission for the head of the Seoul Hospital at the first instance court, it is necessary for the deceased to grasp whether he/she is an ambassadoric typology with the immediately transitioned examination and the chronic gas analysis conducted by the deceased at ○○○ Hospital. However, in the case of an emergency room, the chronic typology symptoms on the deceased are possible to be diagnosed and treated by professional medical professionals, while in the case of an emergency room, there is a limit to the diagnosis and treatment. Therefore, even if the chronic gas analysis was not conducted immediately, it is difficult to connect the doctor on duty with the fact that the doctor on duty was negligent, and it is difficult to view that the treatment was delayed for about 3 hours from the inside of the deceased to the appropriate treatment.

5) In the medical record appraisal commission to the Chief of the Seoul National University Hospital, Nonparty 4 expressed the deceased’s view that the deceased’s death is presumed to have been caused by a series of symptoms based on the malutism, the increase of fluence, and brain death caused by cerebral chronology, and that the deceased’s death is presumed to have been caused by a series of symptoms due to the malutological chronological chronology, and that it is a disease that is neither a certain neutism nor a specialist with experience dealing with the patients of the

D. In full view of the aforementioned legal principles and the above circumstances, even if the deceased delayed the appropriate treatment and examination after the second internal test until the time of mixed treatment, the liability for consolation money of Defendant ○○ Medical Foundation may not be recognized unless it does not reach the degree that it would be deemed that the deceased had provided a remarkably unfaithful treatment beyond the permissible limit of admission of the general public. It is difficult to view that the medical personnel of ○○ Medical Foundation committed an unlawful act of treating the deceased in bad faith beyond the permissible limit of admission of the general public solely based on the facts acknowledged by the lower court in this case.

Nevertheless, solely on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the lower court determined otherwise and recognized the liability for consolation money to Defendant ○○ Medical Foundation. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on negligence in medical accidents and liability for damages, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The allegation contained in

3. Conclusion

The part of the lower judgment against Defendant ○ Medical Foundation is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. All appeals against the Defendants are dismissed. Of the costs of appeal, the part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Educational Foundation and the Plaintiff is assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

[Attachment] List of Appointeds: Omitted

Justices Jo Hee-de (Presiding Justice)