[2] In a case where there is a situation in which the doubt about the military register of a fetus cannot be ruled out among the attempts of mass delivery, the contents of the medical care duty borne by the doctor in charge of delivery

[3] The case affirming the causal relationship between the doctor's breach of the medical duty of delivery and the result in a case where the king surgery was conducted while the newborn baby died for more than 12 hours after birth

1. In a claim for damages due to a violation of a duty of care in medical practice, where it is proved that the victim's act of medical negligence based on the common sense of the general public in the course of a series of medical practice is proved that the other causes, other than a series of medical practices, can not be discovered, the Supreme Court has established the Supreme Court's established precedent to mitigate the burden of proof so that the causal link between the medical negligence and the result can be presumed and liable for damages (see Supreme Court Decision 93Da52402, Feb. 10, 1995, etc.).

In addition, even if it is difficult to view it as difficult to view it as a difficult marction, such as a diversity reduction, even though it is difficult to view it as a marction marction, in addition, if there is a situation that could not exclude doubt about the military register of a fetus, such as the heart marction of a fetus is much shorter than the normal values due to the passage of time, and the frequency and degree of the marction of the fetus, the doctor in charge of the marction shall immediately take measures such as checking whether the marc flight of the pregnant woman is carried out and checking whether the marction of the pregnant woman is carried out, and the result of the marction measurement of the fetus is not improved, and if there is a quantity that suggests the marction of the fetus without improving the result of the measurement of the marction of the fetus, he shall promptly take necessary measures for the safety of the mother and the fetus, such as attempting only an immediate minute

2. In full view of the evidence adopted in its judgment, the court below found the following facts: (a) although Defendant 1’s father and doctor, who was the child in childbirth belonging to Defendant 1 school juristic person and Defendant 2, who had attempted to perform a king scopic surgery with Plaintiff 2, the newborn baby was dead for 12 hours after birth; (b) although the result of the scopic measurement of the fetus’s heart scopic surgery shows the scopic reduction of diversity and the minimum point is less than half of the normal scopic reduction, the court below determined that the above Defendant was negligent in taking necessary measures by neglecting intensive observation and treatment only due to the early scopic reduction of death without any particular influence on the safety of the fetus; and (c) the new scopic child was dead due to other causes, such as infection caused by early scopic infection.

Upon examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the above legal principles and records, we affirm the fact-finding and judgment of the court below as just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the presumption of causation between the medical malpractice and the result, such as misconception of facts due to the violation of the rules of evidence as to medical malpractice, incomplete deliberation, incomplete deliberation, and the presumption of causation.

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Nung-hwan (Presiding Justice)