Suwon-si Suwon-si

Law Firm Jeongsung, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Attorney Yang Jong-chul, Attorneys Yang Jin-jin, Kim Young-chul, Yellow-gu, Lee Jong-sung

Daejeon

Attorney Yang Sung-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

2. Down22 (54 years old, south)

Daegu Western-gu

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims against the defendants are dismissed.

3. One-fifth of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Defendants, and the remainder by the Plaintiff, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

In full view of Gap evidence Nos. 2, Gap evidence Nos. 4 through 6, Eul evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 2, Eul evidence No. 2, this court's request for physical examination to the director of the Nllllllllllung University Hospital and the purport of the whole pleadings as a result of the request for physical examination to the director of the Nllllllllung University Hospital, the following facts can be acknowledged and there is no counter-proof.

A. Status of the party

원고는 피고 김22가 운영하는 ▣▣수플란트치과의원 ( 이하 ' 피고 병원 ' 이라고만 한다 ) 에서 사랑니 발치를 받은 자이고 , 피고 강은 피고 김ZZ에 의하여 고용되어 피고 병원에서 의사로 근무하면서 원고의 사랑니 발치를 직접 시술한 자이다 .

B. The plaintiff's medical records

(1) On August 2009, the Plaintiff first moved to the Defendant Hospital for the correction of pacia. In order to correct pacia, the Defendant Kim Z first determined that, first, the Plaintiff’s love buried below the Plaintiff’s right should be released (the third Daegu value; hereinafter referred to as “voluntary”) and recommended the Plaintiff to do so. However, at the time, Defendant Kim 22 did not explain to the Plaintiff on the side effects such as diloge, etc., which could occur in the course of loving the Plaintiff.

(2) The plaintiff was forced to perform the Love operation on November 7, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as "the instant operation") in accordance with Defendant Kim 22's above solicitation, and the procedure was implemented by Defendant Kang 22.

In addition, Defendant 22 did not explain to the Plaintiff on the side effects, such as dipathy, etc.

(3) On April 13, 2010, the Plaintiff complained of documentary evidence, such as “after the Plaintiff’s entrance,” and “neither ging on the right upper ging,” and complained of symptoms that do not have a sense on the upper side of the Plaintiff on December 16, 2009 after the instant surgery. On April 13, 2010, the Plaintiff was diagnosed as having damaged the right-hand gym in the Hanwon University Dental Hospital, and the date of the instant argument for which more than three years elapsed from the instant surgery was completed, and there was no sense on the right side by the closing date of argument.

(c) Relevant medical knowledge;

(1) Sphere damage after Love;

(A) Loveism occurs at the level of 0.6 to 5 per cent of the Republic of Korea. Hachine damage occurs at approximately 2.6%, and 0.6 per cent of the damage to nchine, and nchine damage occurs at approximately 0.6 per cent of the damage to nchine. Such nchine damage is recovered at low level (at least 96 per cent of the nchine 96 per cent, at least 87 per cent of the nchine). In most of these cases, most of them may be recovered within 6 to 8 per cent and continue to continue to exist at least 9 to 12 months. Moreover, it is known that there is little case where nchine is recovered after the elapse of 9 months.

(B) Neither snow damage may occur even if pressure becomes its surroundings even if the pressure is not directly affected by neutrony due to neutrony caused by neutism in the process of neutism, or by neutism, neutrony caused by neutrony. It is difficult to obtain any proviso that it is possible to see that neutrony is being passed by a general radiation with a neutronic into the neutical system of the neutronus. It is difficult to say that the neutrony is likely that the neutrony will not be neutrony, even in cases where the neutrony is likely to vary to the degree that the neutrony is being neutrony in the process of neutronying or spreading the neutrony. Accordingly, it is difficult to say that the neutrony pressure is likely to vary in the stage of neutrony, even if the neutronic pressure is not easily known.

(C) In order to prevent snow damage, it is recommended to cut ging the ging to the gingle and avoid the gingle to the gingle to the gingle to the gingle to the gingle to the gingle to the gingle to the gingle to the gingle to the gingle to the gingle to the gingle to the gingle to the gingle to the gingle to the gingle to the gingle to the gingle to the gingle to the gingle to

(D) The use of inappropriate devices, damage to skins, and snow booming booms, etc. are often revealed in many cases. Moreover, since the gals are considered to have done very diversely in an autopsy, it is known that the gals might be damaged simply at the time of cutting or booming. It is essential to fully understand the side effects that may occur at the time of the procedure and to fully explain to the patients before the procedure.

2. Grounds for the plaintiff's claim

As the cause of the instant claim, the Plaintiff’s river, a medical doctor performing the instant surgery, has a high level of duty of care to minimize side effects and post-treatment while preserving the surrounding organization, he or she did not differ from the human body therapy for the purpose of treatment. Therefore, it is necessary to prevent these side effects and post-treatment before the instant surgery is conducted through the precise and visual diagnosis, and due care should be exercised in operating a veterinary device. The Plaintiff’s river, a medical doctor of the instant surgery, was conducted with an incomplete consciousness on the autopsy structure and crysis at the time of the Plaintiff’s love plant operation, or caused damage to the Plaintiff’s right-hand snow by cutting off the Plaintiff’s mouth to the Plaintiff’s right-hand snow, and thus, the Defendant Kim Z was liable for damages incurred to the Plaintiff due to the Plaintiff’s negligence during the process of the surgery, and Defendant Kim Z as an employer 2, Defendant 2, Defendant 2, Defendant 2, Defendant 2, 375, 275, and 57.

3. Determination as to the Defendants’ claim for damages due to negligence in the course of an operation

A. In light of the nature of a medical practice such as diagnosis and treatment, a physician has a duty of care to take the best measures required to prevent risks depending on the patient’s specific symptoms or circumstances. However, such a duty of care shall be based on the level of medical practice performed in the clinical medicine field including a medical institution at the time of the medical practice. Since the level of medical care refers to the so-called medical awareness that is one-called one-day known to ordinary doctors at the time of the medical practice, and that is being recognized, it shall be determined on a normative level in light of the environment of medical treatment, shipbuilding, peculiarity of the medical practice, etc. (Supreme Court Decision 2002Da45185 Decided October 28, 2004). A doctor shall have a reasonable discretion to select the method of medical treatment that he/she considers appropriate based on the patient’s situation, level of medical care at the time of the medical practice, and his/her own knowledge, unless it exceeds the reasonable scope, it shall not be deemed that any other measure is justifiable and justifiable (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Da19797, etc.

B. In addition, since medical practice is an area requiring highly specialized knowledge and it is extremely difficult to find out whether a doctor's duty of care has been violated in the course of medical practice or whether there exists causation between a doctor's non-violation of the duty of care and the occurrence of losses, medical practice may be presumed to be based on medical negligence by proving indirect facts that, in the event of symptoms causing a result of a surgery or an operation, it is difficult to see that the symptoms occur to the patient, other than medical negligence (see Supreme Court Decision 9Da66328, Jul. 7, 2000, etc.). However, even in this case, it is not permitted to bear the burden of proof of negligence by estimating the causal relationship between the doctor's negligence and the non-performance of a serious result with circumstances that do not guarantee the probability to presume the occurrence of a result of a doctor's negligence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da66328, Apr. 28, 2005).

C. In light of these legal principles, the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances, i.e., e., (i) celebal damage may occur even if the relevant person does not directly injure the snow; (ii) celebal damage is very diverse and general bitric photo with an individual; and (iii) even before the outbreak, it is not easy to grasp the exact course of the celebal; and (iv) even if the examination of the self-known video (MRI) is conducted before the outbreak, it is not easy to grasp the exact course of the celebal; and (v) it is difficult to implement the said examination on account of the fact that the degree or location of the pressure is high depending on the location of love, and it is not easy to exclude pressure at the stage of love. In full view of such circumstances, it is difficult to view that Defendant 2’s act of executing the instant celebal act without the inspection of his own celebal image is beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.

D. In addition, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence of the aforementioned belief, namely, as the occurrence of snow damage caused to the vegetable brue dog, flady, and the towing of the plate, which is essential to vegetable brue due to the spread of flag, etc., and as such, there may be damage to the vegetable brue even during the operation without any problem, it is difficult to presume Defendant 22’s negligence in the operation of the instant surgery in the instant case where there is no direct evidence to acknowledge that Defendant 22 cut the Plaintiff’s right-hand vegetable due to the operation of the vegetable surgery during the instant surgery.

D. Therefore, without any need to examine the remainder of the claims of the Plaintiff on the premise that the Defendant Z violated the duty of care in the course of the operation, as alleged by the Plaintiff, with respect to the Defendant Z.

4. Determination as to whether to recognize consolation money due to violation of the duty to explain

A. Where a physician violates his/her duty to explain and performs an operation to a patient as a result of a serious result, such as death, etc., the patient is deprived of the patient’s opportunity to choose and is unable to exercise his/her right to self-determination, the doctor shall be liable to compensate the patient for damages incurred thereby.

B. In light of the above legal principles, it is essential for the Defendant to sufficiently explain to the patient before the instant surgery because of the lack of predicting gal harm after the instant surgery. The Defendants did not explain to the Plaintiff on the side effects, such as gral damage, etc. before the instant surgery, as acknowledged in paragraph (1). According to the facts acknowledged above, it is evident that the Plaintiff recommended the Plaintiff to send gral for pathy for pathy correction, which would not have been made if the said explanation was given. Accordingly, the Defendants are liable to compensate the Plaintiffs for damages due to the Defendant’s violation of the duty of explanation. Accordingly, the Defendants are liable to compensate for the damages caused by the Plaintiff’s violation of the duty of explanation.

It is reasonable to view that the plaintiff's claim for consolation money due to violation of duty of explanation also includes the claim for consolation money due to violation of duty of explanation in the plaintiff's assertion that the consolation money is paid 30 million won due to negligence.

C. Therefore, there is no proximate causal relation between the defendants' violation of the duty of explanation and the plaintiff's damage, or there is no evidence to prove that the defendants' violation of the duty of explanation is the same as that of the plaintiff's violation of the duty of explanation required in the course of treatment. Thus, the defendants are liable to pay consolation money for mental suffering of the plaintiff who has lost the opportunity of choice due to the plaintiff's lack of explanation or shortage. In light of the plaintiff's age, occupation and environment, circumstances leading to the medical accident in this case, and other circumstances revealed in the argument in this case, it is reasonable to determine consolation money with 10 million won.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendants are obligated to pay to each plaintiff the above consolation money of 10 million won and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act and 20% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings until July 2, 2013, which is the date of the judgment of this case where it is deemed reasonable to dispute about the scope of the obligations that the defendants shall perform from November 7, 2009, which is the date of the instant operation, to the plaintiff. Thus, each of the claims against the plaintiff's defendants of this case shall be accepted only within the above scope of recognition, and each of the remaining claims shall be made without any justifiable reason. It is so decided as per Disposition.