[2] The case holding that the judgment of the court below which did not recognize it was unlawful as exceeding the limit of free evaluation of evidence, in case where a patient who had undergone spinal dyecule dyeculecule dyecule dyecule dyecule dyecule dyecule surgery twice after the second dyecule dyeculecule dyeculecule surgery was suspected of having been conducted after the second dyeculecule dyeculecule dyecule dyeculecule in the second dyeculecule surgery,

1. The plaintiff's ground of appeal Nos. 2, 3, and 4

A. The principle of free evaluation of evidence, which is declared under Article 202 of the Civil Procedure Act, refers to a resolution from a formal and legal evidence rule, and does not allow a judge's arbitrary judgment. Thus, it is necessary to determine the truth of the fact-finding in accordance with logical and empirical rules in light of the ideology of social justice and equity by legitimate evidence which has undergone lawful evidence examination procedures. Although the fact-finding belongs to the exclusive authority of a fact-finding court, such restriction cannot be avoided (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 82Meu317, Aug. 24, 1982; 2009Da42185, Oct. 15, 2009).

B. The court below accepted the judgment of the first instance, rejected the Plaintiff’s 191 medical treatment for 20 hours after 19, and found the Plaintiff’s 10th anniversary of 196’s friendal friendal surgery to remove the 10th friendal friendal 2, and the Plaintiff’s 6th friendal friendal friendal friendal friendal friendal friendal friendal friendal friendal friendal friendal friendal friendal (hereinafter “Defendant hospital”). The Plaintiff’s 6th friendal friendal friendal friendal friendal friendal friendal friendal friendal friendal friendal friendal friendal fal.

C. However, it is difficult to accept the lower court’s determination on the following grounds, for the following reasons, that there is no evidence to acknowledge that spine powder ebrate was generated in the process of the second operation.

원심이 적법하게 채택한 증거에 의하면, 2001. 6. 1. 시행된 혈종제거수술에서 척추분절동맥의 파열이 관찰되었는데 그 수술에 참여한 전공의 소외인이 작성한 혈종제거수술 관련 수술기록지에는 “1-segmental artery(분절동맥)의 pumping 소견(피고 제출 번역문에서는 ‘멈추지 않는 출혈소견’이라고 표현하고 있다) 보여 1시간 이상 compression(압박) 후 wound closure(상처부위 봉합) 시행”이라고 기재되어 있을 뿐 그 밖의 출혈원인 및 지혈조치에 관한 내용은 기재되어 있지 않은 사실, 수술 부위에서 혈액 등을 배액시키는 기구인 헤모백(Hemovac)에 모인 혈액 등의 배액량은 5. 30. 830㏄, 5. 31. 530㏄, 6. 1. 580㏄, 6. 2. 270㏄, 6. 3. 160㏄로서 혈종제거수술 후 급격히 감소한 사실(기록 1358쪽), 피고 병원 의료진은 2001. 6. 28.경 원고를 재활의학과로 전원하였는데 위 소외인이 작성한 전과기록지에는 “상기 환자는 … 중략 … 2001. 5. 30. 후방유합술 및 기기고정술 후 창상으로부터의 출혈량이 많아 중환자실 치료 및 2001. 6. 1. 응급수술(동맥결찰술), 현재 양측 하지마비로…”라고 기재되어 있는 사실, 자발성 경막 외 혈종의 원인은 대부분 동맥출혈이 아닌 정맥출혈인 사실 등을 알 수 있다.

(4) From the above facts in light of the above legal principles, since the blood removal operation implemented on June 1, 201 was performed to remove the blood species generated from the blood transfusion, its core content is to identify the cause of blood transfusion and to take measures to remove it. It is only stated that it is feasible franchisium and franchisium franchisium, and there is no other details about the cause of blood transfusion and franchisium flachisium flachisium flachisium flachisium flachisium flachisium flachisium flachisium flachisium flachisium flachisium flachisium flachisium flachisium flachisium flachisium flachisium flachisium flachisium flachisium flachisium flaf.

Furthermore, if there is no particular cause that may cause the Plaintiff to undergo dyecule dyecule dyecule inverte, not syecule or syecule dyecule, after the second surgery, this can be presumed to have been caused by the negligence of the medical staff of the Defendant hospital, such as the crye damage by an operation by the operating body during the second surgery, sal

D. Therefore, the lower court’s rejection of the Plaintiff’s assertion on the grounds that there is no evidence to readily conclude that spine dyebrate was spawn in the process of the secondary surgery and that the blood species were generated therefrom, which exceeded the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The Plaintiff’s ground of appeal

Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal by the plaintiff, the judgment of the court below cannot be reversed. Meanwhile, the incidental appeal by the defendants is related to consolation money due to the violation of the duty to explain that the plaintiff sought in advance when the plaintiff rejected the plaintiff's assertion about negligence in medical treatment. Thus, as long as the court below accepted the plaintiff's argument as to negligence in medical treatment and reversed the judgment of the court below

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Cha Han-sung (Presiding Justice)