Seoul Nowon-gu

Law Firm Shin (Law Firm Shin & Yang, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Attorney Kang Jae-hoon

Seoul

Representative ○○○○

Western Law Firm, Attorney Seo-young et al.

Attorney Nam-gi, Lee Jae-young, Lee Dong-chul

Defendant’s 32,910,217 won to the Appointor 1, 2,00 won to the Appointor 2,00,000 won to the Appointor 2,00,000 won to the Plaintiff (Appointed Party), 3, 3, 5, and 6 respectively to the Appointor 500,000 won and each of the above amounts. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 17781, Oct. 10,

22. From May 1, 2007, 5% per annum and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. The remaining appeal by the plaintiff (the appointed party) is dismissed.

3. 80% of the total litigation costs shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) A, and the remainder 20% by the Defendant, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

5,000,000 won, plaintiffs (designated parties, hereinafter referred to as plaintiffs), 3, 5, and 6

In addition, with respect to each of the above 3,000,000 won and each of the above amounts, the year from October 22, 2002 to the pronouncement of the judgment

5%, 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment shall be paid.

A. On October 22, 2002, at around 00, 19:0, the Appointers 1 arrived at the emergency room operated by the Defendant corporation (hereinafter “Defendant hospital”) at around 20:55 with the help of the 119 rescue unit members, who had no sense of scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopics.

B. The Appointer 1 responded to the first diagnosis of Ma○○○, a doctor on duty at the Defendant hospital (lethy 1st century), with no sense of left, and with no force. The same shall apply to the past medical history. The examination conducted at another hospital before two years, with respect to the results of the examination conducted at the other hospital, there was no special symptoms, but with no special symptoms, 10 years prior to 10 years prior to urology, 10 days prior to urology, and 7 years prior to 5 years prior to her entrance, she was found to have been suffering from the dementia, which was written by 17 days prior to her entrance, and she appeared to have been written by 17 days prior to her entrance, and she was written by her first her first lethy, she was written by her first lethy, she was written by her first eth son (7 days prior to her entrance); and she was written by her first eth son (1).g me.

C. The Ma○○○ conducted a psychotropic examination to determine whether the son’s symptoms were caused by a cerebrovascular disease or due to the trophism of the strophism and the trophism at the beginning. However, it is necessary to examine the son’s 1 and son’s guardian’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s ZI’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s her son’s son’s son’s her son’s her son’s her.

Accordingly, at around 22: 08, 00, ○ instructed 1 to conduct an emergency blood test and urine test, and doctor friendly ○ instructed 23:28 to conduct a blood transfusion test (after that, 23:45, 23: 45, and 3: 3.).

D. On October 23, 100 following day: around 45, 100 : Around 45, 1 of the Appointers complained of Luss, so that he administered her to 1 by mixing her thorium (valium) with a large amount of herum (valium) with a herum (valium) with a herum in which her fluenium stabilitys of acute fishing, and later at around 01:30 her 1 complained of that her son’s her ability to left herum, he/she carried out the neological examination again at around 00 1:40.

06: At around 00, 00, the nurse ○○ measured 1’s active symptoms. Blood pressure was 160/100, 114 / 114 / breath, breath / her body temperature was 36 4/C, and the left-hand paralysis was continued (at that time, ○○ was performing a neological test, specific in paragraph 3).

E. 07: Around 41, 00, ○ instructed the selected parties 1 to make a reservation of brain rhographing (this is stated in this note), and 1:50 pinch photographs were presented as a result of an instruction to take the rhographing of brain rhographing (brain), 11:50 pinching of brain rhographing. After that, at least more than 1 marcing of the left side and the left-hand side-hand racking of brain rhographing, which was determined as brain rhographing, from around 16: 16 to 16; on October 25, 100, 100 pinching of brain rhographing to the designated parties 1; and on the other hand, 200 pinching of blood rhographing to the left-hand side of the designated parties 1.00 pinching of the designated parties 1.0

(f) The Appointor 2 is the denial by the Appointor 1, and the plaintiff and the remaining Appointor 1 are the Appointor 1's children.

[Ground of recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 5, 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including various numbers), Eul evidence Nos. 3, Eul evidence Nos. 3, the result of a commission of physical appraisal to the chief of a university affiliated hospital of 00 universities at the court of first instance, the fact-finding with respect to the chief of the Association of Doctors of this Court, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the argument

2. The statement on this part of the relevant medical knowledge is generally accepted as it is because, with respect to this part of the relevant medical knowledge, the neutrona and the leutrona dynasty are accompanied by the reflectors, language disorders, anti-defluence, etc. other than the leuta dynasty, but such symptoms are not accompanied by the leuta dynasty dynasty dynasty.

[Grounds for Recognition] The result of inquiry into the president of the Korean Medical Association

3. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The grounds for liability (1) has the duty of care to take the best measures required to prevent danger depending on the patient’s specific symptoms or circumstances in light of the nature of the medical practice that administers the patient’s life, body, and health. Thus, in determining whether a doctor is negligent in the diagnosis, the determination of whether a doctor is negligent in the diagnosis shall be based on whether the doctor has fulfilled the best duty of care necessary to predict and avoid the occurrence of danger by carefully diagnosing and accurately diagnosing the patient based on the medical ethics, medical knowledge, and experience required as a specialist at least within the extent of the level of diagnosis performed in the field of clinical medicine, even though it is impossible for the doctor to conduct the complete clinical examination. Whether a doctor is negligent in the medical examination or treatment with the best care to pay due attention to the patient’s condition and to prevent possible danger to the patient based on the medical knowledge at the time of the examination or treatment.

It should be determined.

(2) According to the above facts, the designated person 1 was escorted to the Defendant hospital through the 119 ambulances, and the patient 1 complained of the operation of the ○○○. This was a typical symptoms discovered from the brain stroke, and there were sufficient circumstances to suspect brain stroke in addition to the selected person 1's age and past disease, and thus, it is deemed that it is essential to take brain stroke or brain stroke photographs for the correct stroke. Therefore, it is difficult to understand that the Defendant hospital (the third medical institution has no human resources) who did not have the human resources to diagnose brain stroke at night, and that the Defendant was obliged to promptly give the selection of the stroke to the stroke and to transfer it to another hospital without any specific consent from the Defendant hospital to the stroke at the time of the selection of the stroke, and thus, it is difficult to understand that the Defendant did not have any specific right to select the stroke at the time of the examination and its decision.

First, as to the time when the first physician in charge of the defendant hospital performed the neological examination, the defendant asserts that it is about 21:30 according to the statement of Eul evidence No. 1-2 and 7, and the defendant did not decide whether the designated guardian 1 transferred to another hospital from 21:20 to 20, and it is stated that the above guardian 22:00 to 10,000 after 5:00 after 10,000 after 21:20,000 after 10,000 after 20,0000 won of the first physician in charge of the defendant hospital did not regard the neological examination but did not consider the neological examination, and therefore, the doctor in charge did so unilaterally to the designated person 1 et al. without presenting adequate medical examination results and opinions about the leologic 1, etc. at the time.

In addition, the details and result of the inspection conducted at the time are described in Eul evidence 1-2 (MEX: G5). On the other hand, Eul evidence 1-7 (recordd after the Selection was hospitalized) is recorded as evidence 1-7 (the above mentioned; hereinafter the same shall apply). While the examination and high-ranking brain and brain cerebralopology test, physical examination, cardio-cerebralopology test, cardio-cerebralopology test, cardio-cerebralopology test, cardio-cerebralopology test, etc., it is recorded in detail that the normal results have been reached. Furthermore, in light of the results of the examination conducted on October 23, 190 on the next day, the results of the examination conducted on October 23, 199, the number is written. In light of the time and method of preparation and recording of evidence 1-2, 7, etc., it is not doubtful that the doctor in charge has conducted the above detailed neological test, the results of the examination are all doubtful.

Furthermore, the evidence Nos. 1-2 of the above No. 1-2 stated that the doctor in charge conducted a psychotropic examination even around 45 and 10. 23: 06 on October 23: 10, 100, but in light of the fact that the evidence No. 1-3 ( nursing record paper) does not include such information, it shall be deemed that there was no fact that the psychotropic examination was conducted at the above time (the prosecutor conducted at another time).

In addition, around October 23, 10: 06 on October 23, 190, the designated person's left-hand horse status was continued at around 00.

In light of the fact that the doctor in charge gives instructions to take MF photographs, and the fact that the doctor mentioned 'brain brain ck' as precautions, it is reasonable to see that the state of 10:00 :06 on October 23, 190 continues to be in progress from the designated person 1's left side since much more than 0:0 :0. If there are such circumstances, the defendant hospital, who is not equipped with MOI human resources capable of diagnosing MF diseases at night, has a hospital capable of promptly taking MPI photographs at night, but it is difficult to see that 1:0 1:0 1:0 :5 :0 : 1:5 ; 1) ; 2) ; and 3) ; and 1) ; (4) ; and 1) ; (5) ; and (5) ; and (3) ; and (4) ; and (5) ; and (5) ; and (1) ; and (6) ; and (1) 1) ;

(5) Accordingly, the defendant is the employer of the defendant hospital, and is liable for the damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the above medical malpractice.

C. Limitation on liability

However, in light of the characteristics of the brain color disease, the age of the selected person 1, symptoms, etc., it cannot be readily concluded that the designated person 1 might have been completely cured even if the designated person started to take brain color and treat it early. The designated person 1 and the plaintiff et al. also did not immediately move to another hospital and receive treatment at the defendant hospital without being transferred to the other hospital. The defendant's responsibility is limited to 20% of the defendant's liability by taking into account the negligence and bridge as seen earlier by the medical staff of the defendant hospital who contributed to the occurrence of the accident in this case, and setting the scope of the defendant's liability.

4. Scope of damages.

(a) Expenses for medical treatment;

The expenditure of KRW 323,20 (the patient charges of KRW 973,200 or the MRI expenses of KRW 650,00,00 shall be deducted from the expenses incurred in conducting inspections required for the confirmation of brain salvance by the above selected parties, since the expenses incurred in conducting inspections required for the confirmation of brain salvance by the above selected parties) and the expenditure of KRW 15,37,490 in the Hanmaa Hospital plus KRW 11,834,580 in the above designated parties, and KRW 3,179,710 in the Hanmaa Hospital.

【Evidence Evidence No. 6-1 to 4

(b) Amount of future treatment required for future treatment (1) : Continuous outpatient treatment (pharmacologic treatment 2): 169,500 won and pharmacologic treatment / 169,500 won (the above 169,500 won, as requested by the Plaintiff)

[Evidence Evidence] The result of the court's physical examination of the 00 University Hospital Head of the first instance court. The selection of the first instance court and the first instance court's medical examination (A) requires six hours' nursing per day due to paralysis not on the left side and a reduction room (the average of 1.3 years' age from 73 to 2.15 years' age, 2.2 years' age, and 1 (the average of 1.2 years' age, 2.3 years' age, 1929). In light of the fact that the above selection was found in the way that he had been over 73 years' age at the time of the accident and was showing the dementia symptoms that became known at the time of the accident in this case, it is further recognized that the assistance of the 16-hour nursing person is required due to the accident in this case. (B) The selection of the first instance court and the first instance court's medical examination (A) 1 (the average of the two years' age, 2.3 years' age, 1929).

52, 483 won ¡¿ 365/12 days ¡¿ 0.75 x 0.75 x 91.074 = Evidence A 109, 044, and 096 won (Evidence) 1, 2-1, and 2-2; part of the results of physical examination conducted by the court of first instance on the head of the East-gu Hospital affiliated with the Ethical University at the Ethnifian University; the purport of the whole pleadings; and the empirical rule.

(d) Total amount of financial losses (1) The defendant's liability: 20% (20%) : 24,910, 217 won ( = 124,51,086 won (15, 337, 490 won + 169,50 won for future medical treatment + 169,50 won for future medical treatment + 109,04,096 won for nursing expenses) x October 2);

(e) Grounds for consolation money (1) : The age, details and result of the accident, degree of negligence, and other various circumstances shown in the pleadings of this case (2).

1 : 8,00,000 2: 2,000,000

Plaintiff (Appointeds), 3, 5, 6: 500,000 won, respectively.

5. Conclusion

If so, the defendant 32,910, 217 won (24,910, 217 won + 8,000,000 won), 2,00,000 won to the Appointed 2, and 3, 500,000 won to the Appointed 3, 500,000 won to the Selection 6, respectively, and each of the above amounts from October 22, 2002, which was the date of the accident in this case, to the Selection 2,00 won to the Selection 3, 500,00 won to the Selection 6.

5. 5% per annum and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the extent of the above recognition and the remainder of the claim is dismissed. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is partially unfair, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the above order of payment among the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked and the defendant is ordered to pay the above amount, and the remaining appeal of the plaintiff is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Sung-dae

Judges Lee Jong-chul