손해배상(의)
The judgment below
The part concerning Defendant E is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to Busan High Court.
The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).
1. As to the ground of appeal alleging excessive interruptions and negligence in past observation
(a) When providing medical treatment, a doctor shall have the reasonable discretion to choose the method of medical treatment that it considers appropriate in accordance with the patient’s situation, the current medical level, and his knowledge and experience, and any one of them shall not be deemed to be the negligence where the result of medical treatment is just and any other measure is taken, unless it exceeds the reasonable scope;
(2) In light of the above legal principles, the medical practice is an area where high expertise is required and it is extremely difficult for a general person, who is 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 a causal relationship between a breach of duty of care and the occurrence of losses. Therefore, in the event a symptoms causing a serious result occurs to a patient after medical practice, it is also possible to presume that the symptoms are based on medical negligence by proving indirect facts that it is difficult to deem that there is any other reason than medical negligence. However, even in the event of a medical practice, it is also possible to presume that the symptoms are based on medical negligence by proving indirect facts that there is no other reason than the medical negligence. However, even in the case of a medical practice, it is difficult to estimate the causal relationship between the doctor's negligence and the result of a serious serious result, and thus, it is not allowed to impose the burden of proof on a doctor without negligence.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da45185 Decided October 28, 2004, and Supreme Court Decision 2005Da5867 Decided May 31, 2007, etc.). The court is a social justice with free conviction, taking into account the overall purport of pleadings and the result of examination of evidence.