2. Determination as to the claim against the defendant medical corporation D

A. The reasoning for this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is that the reasoning for this part of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that for the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

B. 1) Diagnosis and treatment diagnosis is the starting point of clinical medicine, based on the results of diagnosis, diagnosis, promotion of diagnosis and various clinical tests, etc., and identifying the type, nature, nature, and degree of progress, etc. of the disease, and accordingly, the treatment law is selected. Thus, in determining whether or not there is a negligence in the diagnosis, even though it is impossible to conduct a thorough clinical examination in the process, the doctor should be determined within the scope of the level of diagnosis performed in the field of clinical medicine with careful and accurate diagnosis of patients required by the doctor as a professional in the medical ethics, medical knowledge and experience, within the scope of the level of diagnosis performed in the field of clinical medicine, and whether the doctor has fulfilled the best duty of care necessary to anticipate and avoid the occurrence of the result.

(B) In full view of the following facts and circumstances as a result of the fact-finding conducted by the first hospital physician on July 8, 2010 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da55866, Jul. 8, 2010). (b) In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, if the first hospital physician performed his/her duty of care within the scope of diagnosis performed in the field of clinical medicine, and properly read the first CT video product, the deceased was Sacheon and Sacheon.