2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff (appointed party).

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or each of the evidence Nos. 1-1, 2, 2, 2, 6, and 9 is included, and the court's entrustment of the examination of medical records to the head of the Central University Hospital of this Court, and the purport of the whole pleadings as a result of the supplemental examination of medical records.

A. The net F (G life, hereinafter referred to as “the net”) is a person who was receiving treatment of pyromatic kidney diseases. On May 7, 2013, she got open anti-cogncy at the Young General Hospital on the 10th day of the same month.

B. After that, the Deceased, who received hospitalized treatment at the Mine General Hospital, continued to be in congested consciousness from the 13th of the same month and the am of the same month, and conducted brain-related inspections, and as a result, the Deceased University Hospital operated by the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant Hospital”) for additional inspections to show that there was an additional opinion on blood transfusion.

C. At around 17:30 on May 13, 2013, the deceased transferred to the Defendant hospital, carried out brain CT and MRI tests, and as a result, he observed Apopical he was on the right side side side of the two sides of the deceased’s consciousness. As the deceased’s consciousness continues to be mixed and thus, it is deemed impossible to treat the meculatory meculatory meculatory meculty, thereby inserting the meculter and implementing continuous new substitute meculatory meculs. On the 16th of the same month, the deceased’s consciousness was recovered and the symptoms of low blood pressure were improved, and the treatment of meculical was commenced following the following day.

D. On the 20th of the same month, while supplying the Deceased with nutrition through a misconduct, the Plaintiff started to perform a fluorial test on the 20th of the same month, and on the 21st of the same month, the blood was distributed, and the progress was observed while maintaining the excluding drugs. As a result of the examination of the fluoral blood conducted through a misconduct, it was determined that the exclusion from the fluoral transfusion was necessary due to the result of the examination of the fluorial blood conducted through the above Minister’s view of training. Since the deceased’s cooperation was impossible, it was determined that the risk burden was high at the time of the fluoral test in general, and that the flu

E. On the 24th of the same month after the heart, such as the inspection of the heart, and the cooperation with the heart, the cardiopulmonary resuscitation was conducted on the surface of the water. At around 11:00, at around 11,00, the deceased’s oxygen 70g was injected for the surface of the water, and the deceased’s oxygen ion rate of 94% to 68% was reduced by 94%. As a result, the medical personnel of the Defendant hospital began to ample the ample of the ample while supplying an oxygen at the highest level. At around 11:10, the medical personnel tried to reconven the ample after the ample inserted inserted in the engine but the beer was not promoted. At around 11:15, at around 115, the deceased’s oxygen was gradually added up by up to 80%, and the deceased’s oxygen 1,000 ample and 1:21,000 pneth of the body.

F. While maintaining the mechanical ventilation and continuous new replacement method, the deceased died of fratosis due to fratal cerebral brain damage on February 16, 2014. The deceased died at around 01:40 on February 16, 2014. The arbitr B is the deceased’s spouse, and the Plaintiff and the Selection C, D, and E are the children of the deceased. 2. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion on February 2, 201

The medical team of the Defendant hospital caused the death of the deceased by preventing the following mistakes in treating the deceased. As such, the Defendant is liable to compensate the damages (the deceased’s consolation money of KRW 30,000,000, KRW 5,718,000, KRW 5718,000, KRW 971,050, KRW 971,050, KRW 5,000, KRW 10,000, KRW 10,000, respectively, for funeral expenses of the Appointer B, and KRW 5,00,00, KRW 100,000, respectively, for the damages suffered by the deceased and the designated parties due to the medical team’s tort.

(a) Medical malpractice;

(1) Along with the fact that an elderly deceased who was receiving a pulmonary treatment due to the respiratory difficulty and chronic renal failure accompanied by pulmonary blood, he administered a propool to reduce the capacity and speed of professional spool, thereby causing a repulmonary part.

(2) In an emergency before the respiratory part, the deceased did not properly perform the treatment of the emergency as follows, thereby causing a low oxygen brain injury.

(A) At around 11:05, the medical professionals at the Defendant hospital should promptly check the cause of the decline in oxygen, i.e., the right to prompt ventilation, and take all measures to ensure that appropriate ventilation can be made. The Defendant hospital supplied the oxygen via via amplging via amplging, amplginging, and immediately carried out the inserted in the engine at around 11:10, but was carried out by the inserted in the engine at around 11:15, but was carried out again by the inserted in the engine at around 11:25, because it was inappropriate.

(B) The medical personnel of the Defendant Hospital, even though he/she should immediately administer Ethiophin in the cardiopulmonary resuscitation process, i.e., he/she should administer Ethiophin and additionally administer Ethpin in every 3 to 5 minutes thereafter, was administered 11:15 years and 11:25 times at around 11:25.

B. Violation of duty of explanation

The medical professionals of the Defendant Hospital did not explain to the Deceased, etc. sufficient understanding of the side effects and risks that may occur during the process of the examination before the examination on the surface of the water.

3. Determination

A. Whether medical malpractice is medical malpractice

(1) When a doctor performs medical acts such as diagnosis and treatment, he/she has the 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 patient’s nature of the duties of managing the patient’s life, body, and health. Such duty of care is based on the level of medical practice performed in the clinical field, such as a medical institution, etc. at the time of performing the medical act. The level of medical care refers to the so-called medical consciousness generally known and recognized at the time of the medical act, and thus, should be grasped at a normative level in light of the medical environment, conditions, and the unique characteristics of the medical act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da20

In addition, since medical practice is an area requiring highly specialized knowledge and it is very difficult for a general person, not an expert, to clarify whether a doctor has breached his/her duty of care in the course of medical practice or whether there exists causation between a doctor’s breach of his/her duty of care and the occurrence of losses, it is also possible to presume that the symptoms are attributable to medical negligence by proving indirect facts that are difficult to deem that there are other causes than medical negligence in connection with the occurrence of symptoms in the process of surgery or after surgery. However, even in such a case, it is not allowed to prove the causal relationship between the doctor’s negligence and that the doctor bears the burden of proof without negligence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Da45185, Oct. 28, 2004; 2005Da5867, May 31, 2007).

(2) In full view of the facts acknowledged earlier, as well as the result of the Defendant’s medical record appraisal commission with respect to the president of the Central University Hospital of this Court, and the overall purport of the arguments on the request for supplementation of the medical record, it can be seen that Aolol administered to the Deceased is a product name of a propool. Aol is a drug injection for a propool for the purpose of “propoolis” at the time of the implementation of an internal diameter for the diagnosis. Aolol is a drug for a propool administration, the depth of a propool administration can rapidly change, the citizens’ awareness about carbon dioxide can reduce in the midpool, so that respiratory suppressions frequently and low blood pressure may occur, even if a propool is an adult who is a healthy adult of the propool, and the medical personnel of the Defendant hospital planned to perform the pulmonary control with respect to the deceased and conducted the examination of the deceased’s correct condition before the use of the propool.

In light of the above circumstances, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff and the result of the commission of the examination of medical records to the head of the Central University Hospital of this Court, and the result of the request for supplementation of the examination of medical records, are insufficient to recognize that the medical personnel of the Defendant Hospital was negligent in relation to the volume and speed of the propool’s contribution to the Deceased, and there is no other evidence to support this. Therefore,

(3) In full view of the foregoing facts acknowledged as above, the medical personnel of the Defendant Hospital started to provide ample, ample, and ample, at the time of the reduction of 68% of the deceased’s oxygen due to the result of the request for the examination of the medical records to the head of the Gi University Hospital from among the above courts, and the overall purport of the arguments as a result of the request for supplementation of the medical records, the medical personnel of the Defendant Hospital started to provide ample, ample, and ample, ample, after five minutes of the inserted ample in the engine, and began to provide ample, and the pulmonary resuscitation was not promoted. In other words, once 10 minutes after 10 minutes of the administration of the deceased’s ample, 10 minutes after 3 minutes of the administration of the medical records, and 15 minutes of the diagnosis of the deceased’s pulmonary resuscitation was not appropriate for the first announcement of the pulmonary resuscitation into force of the 1st diagnosis of the deceased’s engine.

In light of the above circumstances, it is insufficient to recognize that the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff and the president of the Central University Hospital of this Court were negligent in relation to the treatment of the deceased’s emergency situation, and there is no other evidence to support this otherwise. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

B. Whether the duty of explanation is violated

(1) In general, a doctor is obligated to explain the symptoms of a disease, the method and necessity of treatment, the anticipated risks of the disease, etc. to a patient or his/her legal representative in light of the current medical standards and to allow the patient to choose whether to receive such medical treatment by sufficiently comparing the necessity or risk of the disease (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Da48443, Jan. 10, 25, 2002; 2002Da4843, Apr. 15, 205). However, in cases where a patient's harmful results are not caused by a doctor's intrusion, or where a medical act is expected to have a death, etc., and where a serious result is expected to have been caused by a death, etc., unless there is any possibility of choosing another patient, or where there is no possible method to make a decision on the patient, and the patient's self-determination right to self-determination is not violated (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da195454.).

(2) As to the instant case, as seen earlier, the medical personnel of the Defendant hospital was living in the hospital of the deceased who did not know the awareness of the purpose, method, possible problems, and measures to be taken at the time of the examination. Considering that the medical personnel of the Defendant hospital did not sufficiently explain the possible side effects, risks, etc. during the examination process, and thus, did not infringe on the deceased’s right to self-determination, it is difficult to deem that the medical personnel of the Defendant hospital violated the duty to explain the part of the deceased’s duty to explain, such as the duty to explain, on the ground that the medical personnel of the deceased was living in the hospital of the deceased who did not know the awareness, and the medical personnel of the Defendant hospital explained the purpose, method, possible problems, and measures to be taken at the time of the above examination at the hospital’s hospital’s hospital’s hospital’s hospital’s hospital’s hospital’s hospital’s hospital’s hospital’s hospital’s clinic’s hospital’s hospital’s hospital’s disease before the above examination process.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.