1. Forwarding ○○

2. Maternum;

Attorney Shin-ho-ho, Counsel for the plaintiffs-appellee, Dong-ho, Dong-ho, Lee Jae-ho, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Priority

The plaintiffs' attorney-at-law's representative housing, sewage, Kim Jong-woo

Incheon Southern-gu Reduction 100 (Seo-dong)

Representative Cho Ho-ho

Law Firm Han, Attorney Park Jae-hwan, Counsel for defendant-appellant

Attorney Choi Jae-ho

2. The plaintiffs' remaining claims are dismissed.

3. 85% of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiffs, and the remainder by the defendant.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

(a) A party relationship;

The deceased Song (hereinafter referred to as the "Death") is a person who has undergone two diversicals at a low-income hospital, and the plaintiff is a child of the deceased, and the defendant is a corporation that operates a low-income hospital (hereinafter referred to as the "Defendant Hospital").

(b) An abortion of the deceased;

1) On October 1, 201, 201: around 09, the Deceased was faced with the head by digging up under the wind of the stairs, which is going beyond the direction of walking the stairs of the second floor of the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City ○○○○○ ○○○○.

2) The police in receipt of a report by a witness to the surrounding area called the deceased to the above ○○○, and discovered the deceased, and called the 119 emergency squad. On October 1, 2011, the 119 emergency squad sent the deceased back to the emergency room of the defendant hospital at around 09.

(c) Emergency measures of a defendant hospital;

1) In an emergency room, the Deceased stated her face to the medical staff of the Defendant Hospital “in the direction of the road.” The medical staff of the Defendant Hospital confirmed the condition of the Deceased. The Deceased was drinking alcohol, and there was approximately 2 cc of alcohol in the future, and there was a heat of approximately 2 cm of alcohol in the future, but food was in the state of food, but he was in the state of food, and he was in the state of fluence.

2) The medical team at Defendant Hospital measured the blood pressure, beer, absorbing, and vertion to the deceased, and sprink and vertebrate protection units were worn in order to protect the sphere and spine, and provided a rail to prevent the sphere. After that, the medical team at Defendant Hospital attempted to provide dental treatment to the deceased under the influence of alcohol, but the deceased failed to provide dental treatment and observe the progress in an emergency room.

3) After October 2, 201, 00: 13 to 05: The treatment process of the medical staff of the Defendant Hospital and the condition of the deceased, expressed on the nursing day from 13 to 20 days, are as follows:

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

(d) The primary operation of the Defendant Hospital;

1) On October 2, 201, at around 05: 20: (a) around 20, the medical personnel at Defendant Hospital checked the condition of the Deceased; (b) the left-hand side of the Deceased was fluored, and did not respond to light without any reaction by 7 meters.

2) On October 2, 201, at around 05: (a) around 29, the medical personnel at the Defendant Hospital recommended the Deceased’s guardian to conduct cerebral cerebral typology, ordering him to establish the possibility of cerebral typology; (b) around 05:3 on October 2, 2011, the deceased gave cerebral typology to the deceased; and (c) as a result of the result, the medical personnel diagnosed the deceased’s cerebral typology on the upper half of the upper half of the upper half of the upper half of the upper half of the upper half of the disease, the upper half of the lower part of the lower part of the lower part of the lower part of the cerebral typium, the blood typology was diagnosed on both side of the cerebral typosis, the blood typopical typology, etc.

3) On October 2, 201, the medical personnel at Defendant Hospital performed two-presidential and tensions on the left side of the deceased from around 45 to around 10:00 on the same day. The medical personnel at Defendant Hospital performed two-presidential and tensions on the left side of the deceased (hereinafter “the first operation”).

4) Around October 13, 201, the Defendant Hospital medical professionals performed refaling on the part of the surgery in order to reduce the balone’s balone’s balone’s balone’s balone in the surgery department of the Deceased.

(e) The second operation of the Defendant Hospital;

1) On October 21, 201, at around 00: Around 15, 201, the medical professionals at Defendant Hospital measured the blood pressure of the deceased at a higher level from 140 to 150m Hg, the left-hand air space is 8m, the left-hand air space is 8m, and the opinion of re-explosion was confirmed on the first operation, and the cerebrT shooting for the deceased was conducted on the basis of the results of re-explosion on the deceased.

2) On October 21, 201, at around 17, 2011: Around 17, the medical personnel at Defendant Hospital performed the diversative surgery (hereinafter referred to as “the second surgery”) using an diversative surgery in a state of computerized anesthesia.

F. Death of the deceased and inheritance of the plaintiffs

On November 23, 2011, the deceased was transferred to a convalescent hospital on November 14, 201, and died on July 14, 2012, and the plaintiffs, who are the children of the deceased inherited one-half each of the deceased's property.

(g) Relevant medical knowledge;

1) The electric source of light-to-closion;

In light of the fact that the blood transfusion means the blood transfusion between the light and the sacrine, and there are many cases where the blood transfusion of the surrounding structures of the light-to-face are generated due to the tearing of a bridge extending over the light-to-face, and is accompanied by the brain surface.

2) Clinical symptoms of climatic transfusions

In particular, symptoms, such as acute hepopic climatic hepopic hepopic hepopic typopic typopic typopic typopic typology, dynamic copopic typopic typopic typopic typopic typopic typopic typopic typicals, brain hepopic typopic typopic typopics, typopic typopic typopic typopics, and typopic typopic typopics, such as chronic typopic typopic typopic typop

(iii) the basic inspection of patients suspected of engaging in light-of-life transfusion and the surveillance of patients;

The evaluation of the patient's food level and vitality shall be conducted with the basic evaluation of the patient's food level and vitality, such as basic skin examination, chest chest chest photo, and heart scarcity. When the level of food and vitality is not good, intensive care for a serious patient needs to be performed, and when there is a chronic change in the patient due to frequent physical strengths, CT shall be re- implemented, and even if there is no change in the patient's disease, the examination shall be conducted within an appropriate time under the direction of the doctor in consideration of the patient's condition. If there is a relatively low level of food, the level of food and clothing may be recovered at the early stage while the general sick room may be conducted by raising the level of vitality and food, but when the acute scarcity transfusion is rapidly aggravated, the authority to concentrate on surveillance of the patient's food and body is to change to the maximum extent possible. This may change depending on the condition or condition of the infectious species accompanied by me.

4) The foreseeable results of the delay in diagnostic action of acute climatic climatic transfusions

If the diagnosis and treatment are delayed, there are serious mergers and risks that could cause dynamic damage to the whole brain and death. how delayed the diagnosis, how late brain damage was delayed, how early brain damage occurred, the location of the diagnosis can lead to a variety of mergers.

In addition, in general, when diagnosis and surgical treatment are delayed due to cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral algos, the dynamic algos are expanded due to the outbreak of severe cerebral cerebral algos, the patient may be placed in a

[Grounds for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap 1 through 5, 11, 14, 15, 16 (including each number; hereinafter the same)

on June 10, 2015, of this Court's Korea Compensation Medical Association

As a result of the due commission, on December 10, 2012, for the Seoul Asan Hospital, the fact inquiry results, the entire pleadings, and the entire arguments.

purport of this chapter

2. Establishment of liability for damages;

(a)the existence of medical malpractices at the stage of emergency measures;

1) In performing medical acts such as diagnosis and treatment, a doctor has a duty of care to take the best measures required to prevent risks depending on the patient’s specific symptoms or circumstances in light of the nature of the duties of managing the patient’s life, body, and health, and such duty of care is based on the level of medical malpractice performed in the field of clinical medicine such as a medical institution at the time of performing the medical act. However, the level of medical care refers to the so-called medical awareness generally generated by a normal doctor at the time of performing the medical act and being dead, taking into account the environment and conditions of the medical treatment, the unique characteristics of the medical act, etc. As such, diagnosis should be identified at a normative level. Moreover, it is important to distinguish whether a patient is suffering from disease and clarify the type, character, degree of progress, etc. of the medical examination, and to determine whether a doctor is negligent in the medical act, and thus, it should be determined that the doctor is 60 times the maximum level of clinical experience and skills of the medical examination and to determine whether a doctor is unable to perform such medical act.

Based on the above legal principles, the medical personnel of the Defendant Hospital recognized the possibility of brain damage caused by two parts of the deceased, taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the description of the evidence of Nos. 3, 4, 5, 11, 14, 15, and 16; and (b) the appraisal of the Korea Compensation Medical Association of this Court on June 10, 2015; and (c) the overall purport of the pleading as a result of the self- inquiry of the Seoul Asan Hospital on December 10, 2012; and (b) the possibility of brain damage caused by two parts of the deceased’s injury to the deceased, and (c) it is reasonable to view that the medical personnel of the Defendant Hospital was negligent in performing his/her duty of care to verify brain exposure by continuously observing the condition of the deceased; (d) actively recommended the deceased or his/her guardian; and (e) even if he/she neglected to perform his/her duty of care to verify brain exposure by continuously observing the condition of the deceased.

① As the deceased was discovered from the stairs below, the deceased was sent out first to the 119 emergency by the 119 emergency squad, and the deceased was exposed to heat in the vicinity of the deceased, and there was a change in the consciousness of the deceased, but it was determined that the medical team at the defendant hospital, which was aware that such a situation of the deceased was caused by a abortion, could not be ruled out the possibility that the deceased suffered brain damage caused by two injury.

② In such a case, the medical professionals at Defendant Hospital have a duty of care to see sufficient information, such as the state of injury inflicted on the deceased or the first responder, etc., who sent the deceased or the deceased to Defendant Hospital, on the condition of suffering from injury, the food condition at the time of suffering from injury, the changes in consciousness of the deceased at the time of suffering from injury, and other changes in symptoms, so as not to mislead the deceased or the deceased to be caused by drinking alcohol due to brain damage. Nevertheless, the medical professionals at Defendant Hospital neglected to perform the above medical care.

③ In the case of a drinking patient, such as the deceased, there are cases where it is difficult to accurately distinguish whether the patient’s consciousness and condition were caused by drinking alcohol due to the doctor’s medical examination, and furthermore, the psychotropic ideal caused by brain damage is revealed only after the lapse of time, and there is a high possibility that the possibility of causing danger to the patient’s life within a short period, such as the deceased, and accordingly, it is highly probable that the possibility of brain damage may not be ruled out. The medical personnel of the defendant hospital at hand give full notice of the possibility of brain damage caused by two injury as above and the necessity of the inspection, and actively encourage the deceased to take brain-related photography, etc. (On the other hand, this obligation does not relate to the patient’s right to self-determination, but should be included in the scope of the doctor’s duty to explain in the course of medical practice with respect to the deceased, and thus, the plaintiffs’ claim seeking damages, such as consolation money, etc. on the premise that the above breach of duty to explain is violated is rejected).

Nevertheless, the medical team at Defendant Hospital did not fully inform the care givers of the deceased and the deceased of the possibility of brain damage or the need for brain ET photographing, etc. on October 2, 201. On October 2, 2011: around 20, the medical team at Defendant Hospital was in a state where the left side of the deceased was fluent and did not respond to light, and was in a state where he did not respond to light, and was in a state where he had recommended brain ET photographing to the care givers of the deceased.

In this regard, the Defendant asserted that “the medical team at Defendant Hospital recommended brain thalthication to the guardian of the deceased and the deceased, taking into account the possibility of injury to the body part of the deceased, but that the guardian of the deceased and the deceased refused brain thalthication.” However, the Defendant’s assertion is not acceptable on the ground that there is no evidence to acknowledge the Defendant’s above assertion. Rather, according to the description of the emergency record (No. 5-1), the medical team at Defendant Hospital explained the possibility of brain thalthication to the guardian of the deceased on October 2, 2011, which clearly shows the symptoms of brain salmatication of the deceased.

④ As long as the possibility of brain damage of the deceased due to two traumas cannot be ruled out, the hospital at risk was negligent in measuring the condition of the deceased at intervals of approximately 1 to 2 hours in emergency measures, and in measuring only the vitality and the state of consciousness of the deceased at intervals of approximately 1 to 2 hours in order to verify whether or not the deceased had any psychotropic abnormal symptoms. In addition, the hospital at risk neglected to observe the progress of the deceased by failing to confirm the reaction and movement, etc.

2) Determination on the remainder of the Plaintiff’s assertion

The plaintiffs asserted that the medical personnel at Defendant Hospital did not focus on the deceased at the stage of emergency measures and did not observe and treat the deceased in a middle-patient, and that they did not verify whether they were cerebral cerebral cerebral ties of the deceased through blood tests.

However, comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances, it is difficult to view that the medical personnel of the defendant hospital was responsible for intensive observation and treatment by placing the deceased in the patient room during the emergency measure stage: (i) the fact that the medical personnel of the defendant hospital did not seem to have a duty to observe and treat the deceased in the patient room; and (ii) the fact that the result of the blood transfusion examination alone does not seem to be enough to clearly identify whether the deceased's cerebrovassis was infected by the medical personnel of the defendant hospital at the above stage of the examination; and (iii) the fact that it was not possible to find otherwise to acknowledge that the plaintiffs' medical personnel of the defendant hospital at the above stage of the examination on the medical personnel of the defendant hospital at the Seoul Medical Personnel Association on June 10, 2015, together with the overall purport of the argument as a result of the inquiry on the patient at the first time on December 10, 2012; and (iv) the plaintiffs' medical personnel at the above stage of the examination on the medical personnel of the defendant hospital at the first time.

(b) the existence of medical malpractices at each stage of the first and second operations;

1) The plaintiff's assertion

In relation to the first and second operations on the deceased of the medical team in the Defendant Hospital, there is a room for the following medical services:

① If the medical team of the Defendant Hospital diagnosed cerebrovascularssis of the deceased, it was erroneous that the medical team of the Defendant Hospital should have administered immediately alleviated drugs even before the first operation.

② On October 2, 201, 201, the medical team at Defendant Hospital diagnosed the cerebral blood of the Deceased and performed the first operation at around 06:46: Around October 2, 201, the first operation was delayed. At the time of the first operation, the medical team at Defendant Hospital did not sufficiently perform the first operation at around 46.

③ After the first operation, the medical team at Defendant Hospital failed to properly observe the progress of the Deceased. On October 21, 201, at around 17:17: (a) the second operation was conducted late; (b) the second operation was not conducted; and (c) the first operation did not take measures to prevent any further blood transfusion or side race; and (d) neglected to observe the progress of the Deceased after the second operation.

2) Determination

A doctor shall have the reasonable discretion to choose the method of medical treatment that is deemed appropriate based on the patient’s situation, the present medical level, and his/her own knowledge. Unless it goes beyond the reasonable scope, one of the results of medical treatment is justified and cannot be said to be negligent in taking any other measures (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da5867, May 31, 2007). In addition, medical practice is an area where highly specialized knowledge needs to be taken, and it is extremely difficult for a general public, who is not an expert, to find it extremely difficult to determine whether there was a non-violation of the doctor’s duty of care or a causal relationship between the breach of the duty of care and the occurrence of injury. Thus, it is assumed that the symptoms caused death to a patient during the surgery could not be presumed to have been caused by negligence by proving indirect facts that there is no other reason than the negligence in the medical treatment, and thus, it is also probable that such symptoms may not be presumed to have been caused by negligence in 200, 2004.

Based on the above legal principles, it is difficult to find that the first 2nd 1st 6th 1st 1st 6th 6th 1st 6th 1st 6th 1st 6th 1st 6th 1st 6th 1st 1st 6th 1st 6th 1st 6th 1st 6th 1st 6th 1st 201 2nd 1st 2nd 1st 1st 2012 2nd 1st 1st 3th 1st 6th 1st 201 2nd 1st 1st 2nd 2nd 1st 1st 1st 201 2nd 1st 1st 2nd 1st 2nd 1st 2nd 1st 2nd 1st 2nd 2nd 1st 2nd 1st 3th 2nd 2nd 1st 2nd 2nd 1st 2nd 3th 2nd 3th 2nd 3th 3th 2.

C. Whether the obligation to explain is violated

1) The plaintiffs' assertion

The Defendant Hospital infringed the deceased’s right to self-determination by failing to explain to his guardian the treatment method related to the second operation, the possible merger, and the result of bad faith.

2) Determination

Although a physician's duty to explain to a patient is not limited to the time of surgery, and it takes place in all stages of medical treatment, such as examination, diagnosis, and treatment, a doctor is obliged to pay consolation money, etc. to a doctor for a violation of the duty to explain. In a case where a doctor performs an operation without properly explaining the patient, and a serious result is unexpectedly caused to a patient, if the patient had explained the symptoms of disease, treatment or diagnosis method and necessity of the patient before his/her performance and the anticipated risk of the occurrence, etc., and if the patient would have been able to exercise his/her right to self-determination and receive the medical treatment, he/she would be able to avoid serious result by selecting whether the patient would be able to exercise his/her right to self-determination. In this sense, the doctor's explanation is not subject to all medical procedures, but subject to the whole medical procedure, and it is not subject to the duty to explain 10 or 201 of the patient's self-determination right to self-determination, and it is not subject to 10 or 101 of the patient's decision.

Based on the above legal principles, even if the medical personnel at Defendant Hospital did not provide detailed explanations in the course of the first and second surgery of the deceased’s guardian, the result of the deceased’s dynamic brain damage and the death therefrom was caused by the negligence in the medical treatment stage of the Defendant Hospital as seen above, and as long as it cannot be deemed that the result was caused by the first and second surgery, which is an invasion that requires the deceased’s choice by the government’s own decision, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant Hospital bears the duty to pay consolation money, etc. due to the deceased’s breach of its duty of explanation related to the first and second surgery, so this part of the Plaintiffs’ assertion cannot be accepted.

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, since the medical malpractice of the Defendant Hospital at the above stage of emergency measures led to the death 2) of the deceased, the Defendant Hospital, as an employer of the Defendant Hospital, is liable for all damages suffered by the deceased and the plaintiffs due to the medical negligence in the above medical negligence of the medical staff.

3. Limitation on liability for damages.

However, the following circumstances, which can be acknowledged by adding the whole arguments to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 3, 4, 5, and 14, are as follows. ① After the deceased was sent to the emergency room of the defendant hospital, the medical personnel at the defendant hospital did not accurately talk about the background and symptoms of injury. ② At the emergency stage of the defendant hospital, it was difficult for the defendant hospital to distinguish the deceased’s condition from her condition merely by taking into account the following factors: ③ the deceased’s medical personnel’s treatment was practically difficult at the wind that did not properly carry out cooperation with the medical personnel’s instruction; ④ The deceased’s medical personnel’s medical personnel’s treatment at the time of death did not take account of the circumstances at the time of the deceased’s death, and thus, it was difficult to readily conclude that the defendant’s medical personnel’s damages should be calculated by taking into account the following factors: (i) the defendant’s liability to compensate for damages caused by the death, even if it was found that there was a violation of the principle of equity in the medical personnel’s treatment.

4. Scope of damages.

In principle, the period of the calculation shall be calculated on a monthly basis, but less than the last month and less than KRW 1 shall be discarded. The current price calculation at the time of the accident of the amount of damages shall be in accordance with the discount method that deducts intermediate interest at the rate of 5/12 per month. And it shall be rejected unless the parties' arguments separately do so.

(a) Actual income;

1) Details of assessment of recognized facts

The following facts are not disputed by the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the statements in Gap's 6 through 9, 17 through 23, and the substantial facts in this court, and the whole purport of the arguments.

A) Gender: Male and date of birth: ○ on October 1959, 1959, and on October 3, 201, which is the date of the instant medical malpractice)

Si age: 52 years of age in the month of age;

B) Income: The running period between October 2, 201 and October 4, 201, which is the date of the instant medical malpractice, shall terminate at 60 years of age.

○ by ○○, 2019, the income equivalent to the value of the steel-line wage shall be deemed to have been acquired until ○.

(A) Calculation of monthly income of the deceased (in the stage of emergency measures by the deceased, an undynamic brain injury at the stage of emergency measures)

The deceased's death date from the date of the medical accident of this case, as long as they were in a mixed state.

up to the loss rate of labor capacity shall be 100 per cent.

C) Operating period: 20 years of age and 60 years of age 2019 ○. 0

D) Deductions for living expenses: 1/3 of the deceased’s income (from July 15, 2012, the day following the deceased’s death)

shall be deducted)

(e)Calculation: 160, 365, 374 won;

A person shall be appointed.

(b) Medical expenses;

A dispute between the parties that the Plaintiff Song-○ paid KRW 14,472,030 to the deceased’s medical expenses

No. (A. 15) The part of the above medical expenses was paid by the Defendant Hospital according to the statement of evidence No. 15.

It appears that the part was merely a part of the compensation of damages, etc.

Defendant is merely obligated to bear (Supreme Court Decision 92Da15031 delivered on July 27, 1993)

(C) On the other hand, medical expenses, such as liveris not related to cerebrovascular in the Defendant Hospital, among medical expenses in the Defendant Hospital, shall also be medical expenses.

to the extent that it is in fact impossible to distinguish that part, or unless it is in fact impossible to distinguish that part,

Under these circumstances, the calculation of the limitation of liability should be taken into account.

(c) Funeral expenses.

The fact that ○○○ paid KRW 5 million as funeral expenses of the Deceased is no dispute between the parties.

(c)

(d) limitation on liability;

1) Actual income: 160, 365, 374 won ¡¿ 15% = 24,054, and 806 won;

2) Medical expenses: 14, 472, 030 won ¡¿ 15% = 2,170, 804 won

3) Funeral expenses: 5 million won X 15% = 750,000 won

(e) Condolence money;

Considering the various circumstances shown in the arguments of this case, such as the age of the plaintiffs and the deceased, the reason why the deceased died, and the relationship between the plaintiffs and the deceased, the consolation money of the deceased shall be set at KRW 10,00,000, and KRW 2,50,000, respectively.

(f) Inheritance relationship;

The plaintiffs inherited the deceased's damage claim 34, 054, and 806 won (=24, 054, 806 won + 10,000 won for consolation money + 10,000 won for consolation money) in proportion to their respective shares of 1/2.

G. Sub-committee

Therefore, the Defendant: (i) KRW 22, 448, 207 ( = 17,027,403, 403 in the inheritance of the Deceased ( = 34,054, 806 x 1/2) + (2,170,804 in the cost of treatment + KRW 750,00 in the cost of funeral expenses for the Deceased + KRW 2,50,00 in the cost of funeral expenses for the Deceased + KRW 19,527, 403 in the annual amount of KRW 17,07 in the inheritance of the Deceased); (ii) the Defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay calculated by the Defendant for each of the above 10-day medical disputes over the deceased’s existence and/or 20-day damages for delay from the 25th day after the date of the imposition of the inheritance of the Deceased until the 10-day medical disputes over the deceased’s 10-day medical disputes over each of the above 10-day medical disputes.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims are justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining Cheong-gu is without merit, and it is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Park Jong-min et al.

Judges Yellow Jin-Jin

By October 2, 2011, 205: By October 2, 201, the term "emergency measures" refers to the emergency measures by up to 20.

2) Although the Deceased died on a direct ground of liver, pulmonary mar, and pacta, the medical personnel of the Defendant Hospital died at the stage of emergency measures.

due to the medical negligence of finding brain transfusion late, the thalphical damage was caused to the deceased's brain, and such thalphical damage was caused.

Since it seems that the death contributed to the Si, there is a proximate causal relationship between the negligence of the medical staff of the defendant hospital and the death of the deceased.

However, the defendant does not dispute the cause of death of the deceased.

3) On October 1, 201, the Deceased was sent to Defendant Hospital on October 23, 201: 09, and on October 2, 201, 00:0

Since it appears that there was negligence in emergency measures between around 05 and around 20: the medical accident day of this case is October 2, 201.

shall be deemed to be a case.

4) Even if there was no negligence by the medical personnel of the Defendant Hospital, the deceased shall lose his/her ability to work during the period of recovery from cerebral cerebral blood.

As long as it is not actually impossible to calculate such normal recovery period, such circumstances shall be determined.

The following shall be taken into account in calculating the limitation of liability: