손해배상(의)
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs and claims filed by plaintiffs A and B expanded by this court are dismissed.
2. Plaintiff C and Defendant C.
1. The reasoning for this part of this Court’s reasoning is as follows: (a) the instant hospital is “Defendant Hospital”; and (b) the G is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except for the case where “G” is deemed to be “child” and “G” as “child,” and thus, it is acceptable as it is in accordance
2. The plaintiffs' assertion and judgment
A. On February 23, 2015, the day immediately before the first replacement of the central beer, i.e., the first replacement order of the central beer, i.e., the U., the U.S. in an unstable state of at least 50%. On February 23, 2015, the U.S. medical personnel at the Defendant Hospital considered that the U.S. had to be in an unstable state, such as prorobine, PT), activation part of the U.S. in response to navigational water, such as proromboplae, and probroboplae time (activ). As such, there was a very high risk of mass transfer in an unstable state, such as undergoing a heart surgery on three occasions prior to the foregoing, the U.S. medical personnel should have examined the changes of the center after the rapid observation and evaluation of the U.S. in turn.
B) In addition, at the time, the CBC was within the normal range, and the CRP’s cR level exceeded the normal level, but it can be seen as a general phenomenon occurring after a self-disease or operation, and thus, further, the infection diagnosis should be conducted by comprehensively taking into account the emulsion rate test (ESR), blood cultivation test, radiation test, etc., and the examination of the risks may occur to the son by the decision to replace the central beer, and the evaluation of what measures may be necessary to prevent and minimize the merger certificate may occur to the son, and what measures should be taken to prevent and minimize the merger certificate is required. However, the Defendant Hospital decided to replace the c) on the sole basis of suspicion that the Defendant Hospital “the risk of infection” was the c). In addition, the Defendant Hospital’s medical team made a decision to replace the emulsium over two times on February 24, 2015.