The defendant shall pay 20,00,000 won to the plaintiff's Park use as well as 5% interest per annum from April 22, 2005 to September 3, 2009 and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

2. All of the remaining appeals by Plaintiff Park Yong-il, the appeal by Plaintiff leapap, and the claims by Plaintiff Succession Intervenor are dismissed.

3. Of the total costs of the lawsuit, the part arising between the Plaintiff’s Park use and the Defendant is 90%, and the Defendant bears the remainder of 10%. Of the appeal cost, the portion arising between the Plaintiff’s Prostitution and the Defendant’s rectification is borne by the Plaintiff’s Intervenor, and the litigation cost arising between the Plaintiff’s Intervenor and the Defendant’s Intervenor after the appeal is filed is borne by the Plaintiff’s Intervenor.

4. The portion paid with the amount under paragraph (1) may be provisionally executed.

The plaintiffs: the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff Park use the amount of 474,80,981 won, the amount of 10,000,000 won, and the amount of 5% per annum from April 22, 2005 to April 22, 2005, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

The plaintiff succeeding intervenor: the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff succeeding intervenor 8,435,90 won and 20% interest per annum from the next day of service of a copy of the application for participation in the lawsuit of this case to the day of complete payment (the plaintiff succeeding intervenor extended the purport of the claim while filing a new application for participation in the lawsuit of this case).

Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff Park Yong-il the amount of KRW 474,80,981, the amount of KRW 10,000,000, and the amount of KRW 5% per annum from April 22, 2005 to the date of the first instance judgment, and the amount of KRW 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the following facts: Gap evidence 5-1, Gap evidence 6-1, Gap evidence 11-1 through 7, and the purport of the whole arguments as a result of the fact inquiry conducted by the court of first instance as of April 23, 2007 and the head of Gangseo-dong Hospital at the court of first instance as of June 4, 2008.

A. A. On March 27, 2002, the Plaintiff Park use was diagnosed as Gamdong heart disease after undergoing a blood test at the Gamdong heart hospital. Since January 5, 2004, the Plaintiff Park use started to use 1mg of the cam for a camary cropary crox, 250mg of dibex 250mg on three occasions per day, and began to use dibex 500mix 3 times from February 5, 2004 to 13 times from the 500mix 50mix, and added the camrop crop 204 to the Eamrop crop 10mix 204 to regulate the connection between erop crop and 10mix 40mix.

On the other hand, on March 29, 2002, the Plaintiff’s stuff had undergone a function test for the first time at the above hospital, and had not undergone a function test for the second time on January 2, 2004, immediately before taking the above mass drugs.

B. On January 1, 2005, the Plaintiff Park use recommended the Defendant, a herb doctor, who became aware of in the golf driving range, to use herb drugs, to draw up the herb drugs. From January 18, 2005 to March 1, 2005, the Defendant used the herb drugs as follows (hereinafter “instant herb drugs”). The Defendant used the herb drugs in duplicate each day, respectively.

As for the prescribed prescription date in the table included in the main sentence of January 18, 2005, 4 YY 2 Y , 2 Y , 2 Y 3 , 1 fat , 1 fat fat fat , 1 fat fat fat fat fat , 1 fat fat fat fat fat , 1 fat fat fat fat fat fat fat , 1 fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat , 2005 fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat f.

주) 1돈 : 3.75g, 5푼 : 1.875g, 1제 : 120㏄/팩, 31-32팩

C. From the end of March 2005, the Plaintiff’s stuff used to be hospitalized on that day after undergoing an inspection by the Gamdong-sylle Hospital, which appeared on April 10, 2005, and was hospitalized on that day.

D. On April 19, 2005, the Plaintiff’s Park use was diagnosed by the medical staff of the Gangseo-dong Hospital to be the full-time senior officer accompanied by brain ties, and transferred to the patient’s room. On April 20, 2005, the Plaintiff’s house was transferred to the Seoul Asan Hospital for transplant surgery.

E. On April 22, 2005, the Plaintiff’s stuffed the transplant surgery at the Seoul Asan Hospital. On May 24, 2005, the Plaintiff was discharged from the hospital on May 24, 2005, and re-hospitalized the Seoul Asan Hospital with a certificate of refusal to transplant and a certificate of merger on July 9, 2005, and was discharged on July 13, 2005 and under treatment until now.

2. Determination on the plaintiffs' claims

A. Summary of the claim

The plaintiffs asserted that, while prescribing the instant herb, the Defendant committed the following mistakes, and caused the Plaintiff’s stuff to the Plaintiff’s stuff, which led to the Plaintiff’s stuff’s occurrence of a egalitulation, and thereby, the Plaintiff’s stuff left a legacy, such as immunity rejection reaction, etc. by undergoing an organ transplant surgery. The Plaintiff’s stuff seek compensation for property and mental damage caused by the Defendant’s negligence, and the Plaintiff’s leapM sought reimbursement of consolation money due to mental damage.

(1) The instant herb drugs contain heavy metals, such as mercury, and the Defendant neglected to conduct basic medical examinations, such as prescribing a hot boom, even though the instant herb drugs must be prescribed in relation to urine and blood pressure, and entered another pharmaceutical product not prescribed in the instant herb drugs by neglecting the purchase and management of medicinal herbs, and the instant herb drugs, which were mistakenly prepared, led to the occurrence of a boom executive member for Plaintiff boom.

B. As to the instant herb drugs, the instant herb drugs included herb drugs, such as yellow or galone, which may cause liver toxicity, and, at the time of the Plaintiff’s use of the said herb drugs, the Plaintiff’s stuff used both urine therapy, etc., and thus, the boom executives generated to the Plaintiff’s gymnas, among the instant herb drugs, ought to be deemed to have been generated by the said herb drugs causing liver toxicity, or by the combination process of herb and medicinal medicine.

Consolidatedly, the Defendant, as an oriental medical doctor with specialized knowledge about medical treatment, failed to take measures, such as recommending both banks to receive medical treatment by failing to discover any defect between the Plaintiff’s stuffs by neglecting to observe the status of the patient in detail.

x) The Defendant did not explain the side effects and symptoms of the medicinal use of the medicinal use of the instant medicinal use and caused the Plaintiff’s use of the instant medicinal use to lose the opportunity to choose whether the instant medicinal use of the medicinal use of the medicinal use of the medicinal use.

(b) Markets:

(1) Whether the medicine of this case was prepared or not

㈎ 먼저, 이 사건 한약에 수은 등의 중금속이 포함되어 있었는지 여부에 관하여 보건대, 이에 들어맞는 갑 제3호증의 1, 2의 각 기재는 제1심 감정인 강신정의 중금속 함유 여부 감정결과에 비추어 믿기 어렵고 달리 이를 인정할 만한 증거가 없으며, 오히려 위 감정결과에 의하면 이 사건 한약에는 납, 비소, 수은, 카드뮴 등의 중금속이 함유되어 있지 아니한 사실을 인정할 수 있으므로, 원고들의 위 주장은 이유 없다.

㈏ 다음으로, 이 사건 한약에 피고의 처방과는 다른 약재가 들어갔는지 여부에 관하여 살피건대, 갑 제6호증의 기재의 의하면 원고 박관용에 대한 피고의 진료기록부에는 2005. 1. 18. 처방된 약명이 갈근탕이라고 기재되어 있는 사실을 인정할 수 있으나, 한편 제1심 법원의 대한한의학회에 대한 2007. 5. 22.자, 2007. 10. 22.자 및 2007. 11. 8.자 각 사실조회결과와 피고 본인신문결과에 변론 전체의 취지를 보태어 보면, 한약처방명의 기원은 다양하며 가장 용량이 많은 약물이 처방명에 사용되기도 하고, 각 의료기관별로 처방명을 따로 정하여 사용하는 경우도 있는 사실, 열다한소탕과 갈근탕은 구성약재와 적응증이 다른 약물로, 열다한소탕은 갈근, 황금, 고본, 나복자, 길경, 승마, 백지 등으로 구성되고, 갈근탕은 갈근, 마황, 계지, 생강, 감초, 작약, 대조 등으로 구성되는 사실, 열다한소탕은 태음인의 체질처방으로서 피로, 허약성 제반 증상에 사용되는 약물이고, 갈근탕은 주로 감기증상에 사용되는 약물인 사실을 인정할 수 있고, 이 사건 한약의 구성약재가 갈근, 황금, 고본, 질경, 승마, 나복자, 백지 등인 사실은 앞서 본 바와 같다. 따라서 이 사건 한약은 그 처방전의 명칭에도 불구하고 그 구성약재 등에 비추어 열다한소탕으로 보이고, 그 처방전에 갈근탕이라고 기재된 사정만으로는 피고가 잘못된 처방을 하였거나 이 사건 한약에 처방한 약재 이외의 다른 약재가 들어갔다고 인정하기에 부족하며 달리 이를 인정할 만한 증거가 없으므로, 원고들의 위 주장도 이유 없다.

Doz. Whether there was a previous executive member due to the instant herb drugs

We examine whether there was a full-time executive member of the Plaintiff Park Jong-il due to the combination of the use of the instant herb drugs or the combination of the two medicines.

In light of the records of No. 16 and the fact-finding conducted on Apr. 23, 2007 and Jun. 4, 2008 on the director of the court of first instance, and the overall purport of the arguments as to the director of the Seoul Asan Hospital at the court of first instance, among the composition of the medicine in this case, sulfur in the composition of the medicine in this case is generally known to be toxicly toxicly, and the Plaintiff’s gambling was not found to be a virus which could cause the outbreak of the executives before the inspection conducted by the virus at the Gangseo-dong Hospital on Apr. 10, 2005. The Plaintiff’s medication was ordinarily generated within 5 days after the toxicity of the medicine in this case and 90 days after the medication in this case’s medication in this case, and the period of double medication in this case’s pharmaceutical medicine in this case is much less than 9 months after the end of March, 2005, and the period of double medication in this case’s medication in this case’s pharmaceutical medicine in this case.

However, considering the following circumstances: (a) No. 16, No. 7, and No. 16 of the executives of the first instance court, and No. 2 of the first instance court’s physical assessment results of the Plaintiff’s University’s GT/GTP Hospital; (b) the following facts are considered to have been comprehensively taken into account; (c) the use of the instant herb drugs by the Plaintiff’s 1, i.e., e., e., m., unex 1; (d) the periodic inspection of the use of DNA drugs is necessary; (e) the use of Enabex is likely to cause e.g., the e., the e., nabex’s e., the e.g., the e., the e., the e., e., the e., the e., e., the e., the e., e., the e., the e., the e., the e. e., the e., the e. drug symptoms.

【Non-Implementation of Measures for All others

According to the result of the appraisal commission to the Korean Medical Association of the first instance court, it can be recognized that blood tests conducted at one medical clinic is prohibited by law. Meanwhile, the defendant's gymnasium did not appeal to the defendant except for the symptoms of the gymnasium while taking the herb drugs of this case, and when the symptoms were shown to the plaintiff's gymnasium, the facts that the plaintiff's gymnasium used for the plaintiff's gymnasium was the end of March 2005, after the plaintiff's gymnasium visited the defendant's gymnasium. According to the above facts, the defendant's gymnasium could not hear any fymnasium from the plaintiff's gymnasium to the defendant's last visit by March 14, 2005, and it is difficult to see that the defendant who cannot conduct blood tests other than the gymnasium and the above plaintiffs's gymnas claim.

· Whether the obligation to explain has been violated

㈎ 일반적으로 의사는 환자에게 수술 등 침습을 가하는 과정 및 그 후에 나쁜 결과 발생의 개연성이 있는 의료행위를 하는 경우 또는 사망 등의 중대한 결과 발생이 예측되는 의료행위를 하는 경우에 있어서 응급환자의 경우나 그 밖에 특단의 사정이 없는 한 진료계약상의 의무 내지 위 침습 등에 대한 승낙을 얻기 위한 전제로서 당해 환자 또는 그 가족에게 질병의 증상, 치료방법의 내용 및 필요성, 발생이 예상되는 위험 등에 관하여 당시의 의료수준에 비추어 상당하다고 생각되는 사항을 설명하여 당해 환자가 그 필요성이나 위험성을 충분히 비교하여 그 의료행위를 받을 것인가 여부를 선택할 수 있도록 하는 의무가 있고, 의사가 위와 같은 설명의무를 위반한 채 수술 등을 하여 환자에게 사망 등의 중대한 결과가 발생한 경우에 있어서 환자 측에서 선택의 기회를 잃고 자기결정권을 행사할 수 없게 된 데 대한 위자료만을 청구하는 경우에는 의사의 설명결여 내지 부족으로 선택의 기회를 상실하였다는 사실만을 입증함으로써 족하고, 설명을 받았더라면 사망 등의 결과는 생기지 않았을 것이라는 관계까지 입증할 필요는 없으나, 그 결과로 인한 모든 손해를 청구하는 경우에는 그 중대한 결과와 의사의 설명의무 위반 내지 승낙취득과정에서의 잘못과의 사이에 상당인과관계가 존재하여야 하며, 그 경우 의사의 설명의무의 위반은 환자의 자기결정권 내지 치료행위에 대한 선택의 기회를 보호하기 위한 점에 비추어 환자의 생명·신체에 대한 의료적 침습 과정에서 요구되는 의사의 주의의무 위반과 동일시 할 정도의 것이어야 한다( 대법원 1994. 4. 15. 선고 93다60953 판결 참조).

㈏ 설명의무 위반으로 인한 손해배상책임의 성립

① In light of the health team, Gap evidence No. 12, Eul evidence No. 16, Eul evidence No. 16, and Eul evidence No. 3, and the fact-finding conducted by the court of first instance on April 23, 2007 on the head of the hospital of the first instance, and the overall purport of the argument of the defendant in the first instance as to this case, there was damage between the defendant and some doctors or herb doctors due to combined actions of oriental medicine or oriental medicine medicine including the heat and oriental medicine in this case before prescribing the oriental medicine in this case. The defendant prescribed the oriental medicine in this case to help the plaintiff's breath, in order to help the above plaintiff's breathy, provided that the above oriental medicine in this case only caused inconvenience such as fire-fighting disorder, snow, clothes, and two pain, and it did not explain the possibility of damaging the function of the oriental medicine in this case at the time, and it could be acknowledged that the above plaintiff's medication in this case had not been damaged by the 3-month surgery in this case.

② According to the above facts, at the time of the Defendant’s prescribing the instant herb to the Plaintiff’s Park use, the Plaintiff’s stuff used relatively for a relatively long period of time that might cause damage to the liver, and the instant herb included a sulfur likely to cause damage to the liver. The instant herb was damaged by a combination effect of herb or medicinal medicine, including the instant herb herb, and there was damage between the instant herb and the instant herb. As such, the Defendant, an oriental medicine doctor, at the time of prescribing the instant herb, has the duty to verify what the said Plaintiff stuffs at the time, and explain that damage may occur between the instant herb or the instant herb, and to instruct the said Plaintiff to return the instant herb by examining whether the instant herb or the instant herb or the instant herb or the instant herb, which were in use, had the said Plaintiff undergo an inspection of the functions between the two hospitals, and by examining whether there were abnormal functions between them.

However, since the defendant's failure to perform the duty of explanation and guidance as above and thereby, the plaintiff Park Jong-il lost an opportunity to choose whether or not the plaintiff's medicinal use of the herb of this case and made it impossible to exercise the right of self-determination, the defendant is liable to compensate for damages caused by the violation of the duty of explanation.

③ Meanwhile, according to the above basic facts, it appears that Plaintiff’s gambling at the time of prescribing the herb of this case had a normal judgment ability as an adult, and therefore, Defendant cannot be said to have the above duty of explanation as to Plaintiff’s prostitution, which is the wife of Plaintiff’s gambling room (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Da37862, Jul. 22, 1997). Thus, Plaintiff’s claim for correction on the premise that Defendant is liable for the above duty of explanation as to Plaintiff’s prostitution, based on the premise that Defendant is liable for the above duty of explanation, is without merit.

㈐ 손해배상의 범위

① Furthermore, as to the scope of damages that the Defendant is liable to compensate, there is no negligence on the part of the Defendant in prescribing the instant herb, and as to the fact that there is no proximate causal relation between the taking of the instant herb medicine and the full-time executive members that occurred to Plaintiff Park Yong-il, the Defendant’s violation of the duty to explain and the full-time executive members that occurred to Plaintiff Park Jong-il, and thus, there is no proximate causal relation between the Defendant’s violation of the duty to explain and the full-time executive members

Therefore, the defendant is liable for paying consolation money only to the plaintiff Park Jong-il for mental damage caused by the violation of the duty of explanation as above, and there is no other liability for compensating for all damage including property damage.

② In addition, in relation to the amount of consolation money that the Defendant is obligated to pay, the Defendant’s age and career of the Plaintiff’s stuff, the background that the Plaintiff’s stuff used the herb in this case, the details of the Defendant’s duty to explain, the circumstance that the Plaintiff’s stuff failed to perform such duty, the Plaintiff’s symptoms and relation to the Plaintiff’s stuff, and all other circumstances revealed in the argument in this case, it is reasonable to determine the amount of consolation money that the Defendant is to pay to the Plaintiff’s stuff as KRW 20 million.

C. Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff Park Jong-young damages for mental damage caused by violation of the duty of explanation the amount of KRW 20 million and damages for delay calculated by each rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act until September 3, 2009, which is the date of the ruling of the court of the first instance that the defendant's appeal as to the existence or scope of the duty of explanation from April 22, 2005, which was sought from the date of tort, to the date of full payment, and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment.

3. Determination on the claims of the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor

A. Summary of the claim

After taking the instant herb drugs as prescribed by the Defendant, the Plaintiff’s heir paid KRW 8,435,90 as disability pension until March 31, 2009 to the Plaintiff’s stuff as the Plaintiff’s disability pension was paid to the Plaintiff’s stuff by March 31, 2009. Since the Plaintiff’s heir’s claim for the disability pension paid to the Plaintiff’s stuff due to the Defendant’s medical accident, the Defendant is obligated to pay the above disability pension and damages for delay paid by the Plaintiff’s heir to the Plaintiff’s stuff.

(b) Markets:

The defendant did not commit negligence in prescribing the herb of this case, and it is difficult to view that there is a proximate causal relation between the taking of the herb of this case and the taking of the former executives who occurred to the plaintiff Park Yong-ok. Therefore, the defendant's fault and the plaintiff's claim by the succeeding intervenor on the premise that there is a proximate causal relation between the plaintiff's taking of the medicinal use of the herb of this case and the former executive officers and the taking of the medicinal use of the medicinal use of the medicinal use of the medicinal use of the medicinal use of the medicinal use of the medicinal use of the medicinal use of this case is without merit (In addition, the plaintiff's succeeding intervenor did not appeal as to the judgment of the first instance court that dismissed all the claims of the plaintiffs and the plaintiff's succeeding intervenor within the appeal period and filed a new application for intervention by expanding only the purport of the claim at the trial as the same claim in the first instance court without filing an appeal against the judgment of the first instance court, and the part dismissing the plaintiff's succeeding intervenor's application for intervention at the trial of this case constitutes a new claim.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the claim of this case against the defendant of Park Yong-il is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit, and all of them are dismissed as it is without merit. Since the part of the judgment of the court of first instance as to plaintiff Park Jong-sik's use of plaintiff's work is unfair with some different conclusions, part of the appeal is accepted, and it is revoked, and the payment of the above recognized amount is ordered against the defendant. The remaining part of the judgment of the court of first instance as to plaintiff Park Yong-il's use of the work and the part as to the plaintiff leap amendment is just as it is concluded in this conclusion, and the remaining part of the judgment of the court of first instance as to the plaintiff Park Jong-il's use of the work and the appeal for plaintiff leap amendment are dismissed as it is without merit. The plaintiff's claim of the plaintiff successor is dismissed

Judges Sung-dae (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Justice)