The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. When a doctor performs medical acts, such as diagnosis, treatment, etc., he/she has a duty of care to take the best measures required to prevent risks depending on the patient’s specific symptoms or circumstances, given the characteristics 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 medicine field, such as a medical institution, at the time of performing the said 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 by an ordinary doctor, and thus, ought to be grasped at a normative level in light of the medical environment and conditions, the peculiarity of the medical act, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 99Da45379, Apr. 379, 26, 199; 209Da45146, Nov. 10, 2011).

2. After recognizing the facts and circumstances as stated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that the Plaintiff suffered damage to low oxygen brain by failing to perform the breath in the body of the Plaintiff on the ground that the Defendant, as a doctor of the Plaintiff’s body, knew that the Plaintiff was in a state of undermining the recognition ability, by examining the details and contents of the surgery performed by the Plaintiff through the medical record, etc., and had confirmed that the Plaintiff had symptoms of undermining the water surface, and had been sufficiently prepared to prepare for emergency situations, such as the suspension of breath in the surface of the body of the Plaintiff. However, the lower court did not take such measures and did not notify the Plaintiff of the risks of the breath in the body of the Plaintiff to the E who performed the breath in the surface of the body of the Plaintiff.

3. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal principles and records, some inappropriate points are found to be justifiable. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations by misapprehending the legal doctrine on causation with negligence.

4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

[Attachment-dae]

Justices Park Poe-young

Justices Kwon Soon-il