손해배상(의)
1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked;
2. The plaintiffs' claims corresponding to the cancellation part of paragraph 1.
1. The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as follows: “1. Basic Facts for the first instance judgment” is the same as the part of “1. Basic Facts” under Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for the cases where the six pages 8 through 12 are dismissed as follows.
[Ground of Recognition] In without any dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 3 (including each number), each evidence No. 1 and 3 (including each number), the result of the commission of each physical appraisal to the director of the astronomical Matern Hospital at the court of the first instance, the result of the commission of the medical record appraisal to the director of the Seoul Matern Hospital at the court of the first instance, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination on the assertion of negligence in medical treatment
A. The summary of the plaintiffs' assertion 1) medical personnel at the defendant hospital at the defendant hospital at the end of the first surgery at the time of the first surgery at issue was negligent in misconscepting the blood products to the left-hand A2 blood in addition to the cryptive traffic dynamics in the process of the first surgery at issue. Even if the first surgery at least did not directly reflect the blood transfusion A2, at least after checking brain-related pressure by crypting brain dogs, and closely checking whether brain-related pressure by crypting the cryptives, while neglecting such care, there was negligence of blocking the blood products by pressure of crypting the blood products by crypting the cryptive crypt. 2) in light of the nature of the human life and body, the doctor required to take the best measures required to prevent any danger depending on the patient's specific symptoms or circumstances in light of the nature of the medical practice at the time of the first surgery at issue. However, the determination of the medical practice at issue should be made based on the normative level of medical practice at the medical treatment.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Da54071 Decided February 26, 2009, etc.). 3.