(b) The degree of the duty of care, which serves as a standard for determining the existence of any negligence of the medical professionals;

B. In a medical accident, the negligence of a medical staff member performed the duty of care required on a general basis as an ordinary person. Here, “general ordinary person” refers to a person who is not an abstract ordinary person but engaged in such duties and duties. Thus, if such person is an ordinary person, he/she should discuss whether there is negligence based on the degree of care that can be performed by him/her. Accordingly, the general level of medical science at the time of the accident, the environment and conditions of medical care, and the specificity of medical practice should

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the non-party 1, who is not aware of the 5-day shock of the deceased and who is not aware of the 0-day shock and who is not aware of the 1-day shock and the 0-day shock of the 5-day shock, and who is not aware of the 1-day shock and the 1-day shock of the deceased's disease after the 0-day shock, shall not be found to have been found to have been using the 0-day shock of the 1-day shock and the 1-day shock of the 5-day shock of the deceased, and shall not be found to have been able to have been found to have been found to have been infected by the 1-day shock of the 5-day shock and the 1-day shock treatment system of the deceased, and shall not be found to have been able to have been found to have been found to have been using the 1-day shock treatment system after the 1-day shock treatment.

2. In order to recognize the negligence of a medical staff member in a medical accident like this case, the medical staff member failed to anticipate the occurrence of the result despite the foreseeable of the occurrence of the result, and even if the occurrence of the result could have been avoided, it should be examined by negligence (see Supreme Court Decision 82Do3199, Jun. 12, 1984). Such negligence has fulfilled the duty of care required in accordance with the general standards for ordinary persons, and thus, the general common person here refers to a person who is not an abstract general public, but is engaged in such duties, and therefore, in the end, anyone should discuss the existence of negligence on the basis of the degree of the care that he can normally perform. (See Supreme Court Decision 66Da1938, Jul. 16, 1967). The general level of medical science at the time of the accident, the medical environment and conditions, and the specificity of medical practice should be considered.

3. According to the records, while the non-party is working as nursing staff with the qualification of nursing staff on January 10, 1975, the non-party works as the above Cheongbuk-do public health clinic from December 2, 1981 to the above Cheongbuk-do public health clinic. On the other hand, the above Cheongbuk-do public health clinic (Special Measures for Public Health and Medical Services in Agricultural and Fishing Villages) allows a person who is not a doctor and is commissioned after receiving a certain education from among those who are qualified as nursing staff and maternity clinics to take charge of health care for residents in the areas lacking medical service, and the person who is commissioned after receiving a certain education can perform minor medical acts as prescribed by the Presidential Decree. Thus, in this case, the determination of the negligence of the same head

However, according to the facts acknowledged by the court below, the non-party did not directly prescribe the above deceased's disease, but did so by requesting the above deceased to remove him with a spirosis from the Myeon office, and it was known that the patient who caused side effects at the time of spirtoma, might die by a injection shock, and thus before injection, the non-party was exposed to the above deceased's left-hand body and caused a voice reaction. In addition, prior to injection, the non-party was exposed to a spirical shock by a spirtoma and spirtoma, one time per 68,000 patients, and one time per 68,00 patients. Even if it was not possible for the present medical level of the court below to find out whether the above deceased's spirtoma had an adverse effect on the spirtoma, the non-party did not request the medical doctor to conduct an spirical shock test, and thus, it is acknowledged that the court below did not have any influence on the general medical negligence (public negligence).

4. Thus, the remaining grounds for appeal by the defendant's attorney are without merit. Thus, the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court which is the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice)