2. 7

3. C public corporation:

[Judgment of the court below]

*** * The Agency

Representative President**

Legal representative***

Representative President****

Attorney Lee Jae-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

2. The plaintiffs' remaining claims and the plaintiff A's successor's claims are dismissed, respectively.

3. Among the costs of lawsuit, the part 9/10 arising between the plaintiffs and the defendant is borne by the plaintiffs, the remainder is borne by the defendant, and the part arising between the plaintiff A and the defendant is borne by the succeeding intervenor. The above succeeding intervenor

shall be borne.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

Purport of claim and purport of succession participation

1. Purport of claim

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff A 109, 735, 771 won, plaintiff B, and C 57, 866, 279 won, respectively, and 5% per annum from July 25, 2012 to the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. Purport of succession participation

The defendant shall serve 9,297, 530 won and 3,850 won among them, 920 won and 1,50 won from the day after the last copy of the written application for participation in the succession of this case to the day of complete payment, 1,501, and 620 won on February 19, 2014 from the day after the last copy of the written application for participation in the succession of this case is served to the day after complete payment, 1,208, 620 won, to the day after the day after the last copy of the written application for participation in the succession of this case is served to the day of complete payment, 1,208, 620 won, to the day after the day after the last copy of the written application for participation in the succession of this case is served to the day after complete payment, 3,00 won per annum from the day following the day after the last copy of the written application for participation in the succession of this case is served to 3,000 won per annum 14.

A. Status of the party

1) On July 10, 2012, he/she died on July 25, 2012 after he/she received crypism and crypism on the right side register at the Defendant Hospital.

2) Plaintiff A is the deceased’s wife, and Plaintiff B and C are the children of the deceased.

B. Circumstances, surgery, etc. of the deceased’s internal organs;

1) On June 28, 2012, the Deceased was inspected on the family site *** within the family site * the family site * the family site * the family site - the family site - the family site - the family site - the family site - as a result of the diagnosis.

2) On July 2, 2012, the Deceased was inspected at the Defendant Hospital on July 5, 2012, and undergone the above internal test and the structural part and the structural part of the clothes and the structural part of the CT and the structural part of the BT (the result of the above internal test). The results of the examination are observed from the front side of the part of the deceased's front wall to the front part of the front government, and from the inner part of the front government, the deep-depth trad with the inner part of the front government. The changes in annual installments showed the opinion that "the main part of the crypted so that it can easily be seen that the crypted blood transfusion and the salphering part of the body, the result of the cryp test, the cryp of the cryposis, the cryp of the cryp, the eump of the eump, the eump of the eump, the multiple eump.

3) Based on the results of the above examination, the Defendant hospital planned to perform the above Ampology surgery (which constitutes an operation to perform a part of the operation method of the above Amphere, which constitutes an operation to perform a part of the operation method of the above Amphere, and the part of the remaining part of the above Amphere, which remains after having left the part of the above Amphere, or the factory part of a small windowpere), and received written consent after explaining the meaning of the above Amphere, operation method, etc. to the Deceased.

4) On July 9, 2012, the Deceased was hospitalized at the Defendant Hospital to undergo an operation. On July 10, 2012, the next day, H performed an operation to cut off the body of the Deceased. However, as a result of an organizational inspection on the part of the above boundary during the operation, H performed an operation to cut off the body of the deceased (the operation to connect all the above to food and plant) to the remaining end of the operation. In addition, even on the register, the operation to cut off the body up until the affected right register (hereinafter referred to as “the operation of this case, including the cryption and the right side cryption”).

5) As a result of the organizational inspection conducted after the instant surgery, it was determined that the final weapons on the deceased’s upper cancer were 4 weeks (it is confirmed that the vertical invasion of the Malaam was carried out at at least 16 places of a forest cute, which was cut off by drilling the upper eye, and directly breaking it with its surrounding organization, and that it was confirmed that there was a remote voltage or being accompanied by a malapar for any other long time, such as a laver or waste).

(c) Progress after an operation;

1) After July 10, 2012, the Deceased filed an appeal for pains on the part of the operation and the urine of the operation on the day of the operation, and showed a temporary heat symptoms. The Defendant hospital determined that the occurrence of heat caused by an inorganic anesthesia caused by the overall anesthesia that could normally occur after the operation, the pains caused by the bats, and the bats disc and the bats of the Deceased, which can be caused by the bats, can be caused by the bats, and the bats of the Deceased, and tried to take measures for the administration of the bats, antibiotics, etc., and continuously observe the bats.

2) On July 17, 2012, the deceased’s symptoms were serious, and the blood plate value was reduced, the Defendant hospital provided blood transfusions and anti-biotics treatment, suspected of double farming, and conducted a double-pact test on July 17, 2012. The result of the test was not observed.

3) On July 19, 2012, the deceased constantly complained of the pain pain, the Defendant Hospital requested a compromise with the military court on the part of the deceased on July 19, 2012, and inspected MRI and self-official video (MRI and self-official video) on July 21, 2012, and confirmed the frame of the deceased's cancer tissues as a result of the autopsy.

4) Accordingly, the Defendant Hospital was immediately convicted of the Deceased’s blood salvology, and confirmed the multiple salpology of the deceased on July 24, 2012 (PET - CT) test results.

5) On July 25, 2012, the Deceased appealed from around 01:00 to around 20, died around 00.

(d) Relevant medical knowledge;

1) Methods of inspection for cancer diagnosis

Although there are in-depth border, upper minister-working, uniform computer-computerization floor shooting, MMalia, etc. as a result of an examination to diagnose Maam, it is essential to conduct a tissue life inspection through the above internal border test to confirm whether Maamamamamamamamam, it is necessary to conduct an examination to confirm the progress and the progress of the Maamamamamamambi, which is the most part of the examination to confirm the existence of transfer of the Maambi (py computer-computer shooting screen of Madambomi).

On the other hand, in addition to the aforementioned cti testing, the BET - CT, a single-story shooting (the method of inspection combined with the PET examination) examination and the computer-to-shot photography (T), etc. (the method of inspection in which part of the double wall is cut, and the body organs, such as the brace, and the dunes, are observed into the body and recorded into the body, and the body organs, and the body organs are recovered by the biological examination, if necessary) can be used. However, in the case of a pet cti examination, the body organs are deemed to have been determined to have a large amount of 50% in the examination of the patient with the actual progress cancer, and there is a limit on the method of inspection.

Furthermore, the prosecutor uses special equipment to provide the radioactive drugs taken in on the bones of the bones (the radioactive drugs taken in on the bones of the bones through a video examination of Boneone sone and pelke diseases, and then filme the radioactive drugs taken in on the bones of the telegraph) is known to have a significant role in the patient suspected of transfer of the bones of cancer. However, in general, the verte of the bones of the vertam is not so high as to have a frequency of occurrence due to the divessis, and thus, it is not implemented for all the radioactive cancer patients.

2) Determination of injury or disease (the term of a disease)

In order to diagnose accurate weapons, it is necessary to accurately grasp the organizational close inspection of the component of the organization that was cut off after the operation, in addition to the opinion at the time of the operation, it is necessary to accurately grasp the invasion level and the cirrology. Therefore, it is not possible to accurately determine the weapons of the cirrosis before the operation.

3) Medical treatment and operation methods for cancer

Currently, it is known that the most effective method of treatment for amamamba is a dypological dypological dypological dypological dypological dypological dypological dypological dypological dypological dypological dypological dypological dypological dypological dypological dypological dypological dyp

On the other hand, in the case of crypty cancer accompanied by another long-term transition, it is not possible to flachipate the crypty. Accordingly, there are cases where only the crypty was performed to crypate only the cypine, or to improve the symptoms of patients, such as fastening, blood transfusion, pulmonary color, nutrition disorder, etc. In this case, the cypical cryption is difficult to expect a medical treatment and it is poor after the operation (in reference, most 1 crypump cancer can be treated close to the medical treatment, but the life rate of 80% in the light of the crypypypymymum of the crypypypym, 3 cyp to 50% in the light of the crypypypym, and 4 cyphers merely 20%

However, with the recent development of alcoholic beverages, even in the case of crypam cancer accompanied by electric power, such as hypium treatment only without an operation, and hypium treatment, there is a research result that the size of the crypium and the part of the crypium have been extended by administering the crypium after the operation after cutting off the crypium. This is considered to be due to the reduction of the size of the crypium by reducing the size of the crypium as many as possible.

[Judgment of the court below] Each of the facts that there was no dispute as to the basis of recognition, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 8 (including each number of evidence No. 1)

re-examination and examination of the President of the Korean Medical Association of this Court and the President of the Korean Compensation Medical Association.

As a result, the purport of the whole pleading

2. Determination on the plaintiffs' claims

A. Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

Since the Defendant hospital caused the death of the deceased by negligence as follows, it is obligated to compensate for damage caused by the deceased’s deceased’s death (property damage of KRW 132,531,979, solatium of KRW 80,000) and the Plaintiffs’ mental damage (the solatium of KRW 40,000,000, KRW 20,000,000,000), and the Defendant hospital is obligated to pay the amount stated in the purport of the claim to the Plaintiffs following the inheritance of the deceased.

1) Fruits in the determination of cryptites before the operation

Despite the fact that the deceased is highly likely to transfer to another long term, the defendant hospital conducted only the above internal vision test and the pelvis test, and did not conduct any additional tests such as pet spact spact test, taking the clothes spact test, bones spact cans, etc. which can clearly be seen as the whole, and furthermore, planned spact spacts against the deceased, and conducted spact spacts, etc., thereby causing death.

2) Fruits in the operation or the selection of operating methods

Defendant hospital: (a) the Deceased’s hospital was 4 infinite her for another long time; and (b) when she performed the above cinite 4 patients with considerably long time, it may cause death, such as accelerating the cinite cinite cinite c infinite cinite cinite cinite c infinite cinite cinite c infinite cinite cinite c infinite cinite c infinite cinite c infinite cinite cinite c infinite cinite c infinite cinite c infinite cinite c infinite cinite cinite cinite

3) Gross negligence in observation of progress and treatment after surgery

After the operation, the Defendant hospital caused the death of the deceased by failing to perform the duty of care necessary for the progress observation and treatment, such as conducting additional inspections, etc. after the surgery without taking any necessary measures, even though abnormal symptoms, such as the pain symptoms, the pulmonary inconvenience, and the eromatic pain, the decline in the eromatic eromatic value, and the increase in the eromatic eromatic value, etc.

4) Violation of the duty to explain

Before the instant surgery, the Defendant hospital explained to the Deceased that it would perform the above-mentioned 2/3 of the above-mentioned surgery, and did not obtain the consent of the surgery by explaining to the right ledger that the whole process was cut off and that the operation was limited. Furthermore, the Defendant hospital violated the self-determination right to select other treatment methods by failing to explain the opportunity for the Deceased to select treatment methods, not the above-mentioned treatment, even though it is necessary to give an opportunity for the Deceased to choose other treatment methods, by explaining that the above-mentioned treatment methods may rapidly be performed or related mergers may occur when it is performed to the patients with a high possibility of transfer of other organs as the Deceased, such as the Deceased.

B. Determination

1) Determination as to the assertion of negligence in the determination of cryptites before the operation

The Defendant Hospital planned to recommend and implement the above 2/3 thodide crypology to the Deceased, after conducting the above thodide crypology test on the deceased. On July 10, 2012, the organizational examination conducted in the operating room of the operation conducted on the basis of the above boundary and right ledger, and the performance of the operation conducted on the whole and right-hand crypology of the deceased. As a result of the direct examination conducted after the operation of the instant case, the fact that the thodum cypology of the deceased was determined to have four thodump disease of the deceased.

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant hospital erred in the judgment of the deceased prior to the surgery, and ① the accurate diagnosis of the deceased is necessary to accurately grasp the affected leapdo and the elime before the surgery in addition to the opinion at the time of the surgery. As such, it is not possible to accurately determine the weapons before the surgery. ② Although the Defendant hospital did not perform the eromatic examination of the deceased, it seems that it could substitute the eromatic examination because it was anticipated that the eromatic examination was conducted in the process of the eromatic surgery, and ③ even if the eromatic examination was conducted, it is difficult to conclude that the above eromatic examination was conducted without any further examination of the above erosium 50% of the erosium, and that the above erosium can not be seen as being conducted without any further examination of the above erosium, and thus, it is difficult to conclude that the above erosium can also be conducted without delay.

2) Determination as to the assertion that there was negligence in the conduct of surgery or the choice of the method of surgery

A doctor in charge of life and health of a human being requires the best duty of care necessary to prevent danger in light of the nature of his/her duties. Accordingly, a doctor must give due care to the patient's attitude, and provide treatment by giving due care to all circumstances, including the effect and side effects of the treatment method, based on the medical knowledge at the time of treatment. The criteria for such duty of care shall be determined based on the level of medical care by practice of so-called clinical medicine at the time of treatment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Da5933, Feb. 11, 1997). A doctor shall have considerable discretion to choose the method of medical treatment which is deemed appropriate based on the patient's situation, the above level of medical care, and his/her own knowledge and experience, and a doctor shall not be deemed to have been negligent in taking any other measures (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Da59375, May 37, 2007).

In this case, there is a view that the progress of the Borrman Ⅲ type, which was sent from the front side of the front side of the front side of the front side of the front side of the front side of the front side of the front side of the front side of the front side of the front side of the front side of the front side of the front side of the front side of the front side of the front side of the front side of the front side of the front side of the front side of the front side of the front side of the

Highly, it is difficult to find out the scope of the deceased's diversary diversary diversary diversary diversary diversary diversary diversary diversary diversary diversary diversary diversary diversary diversary diversary diversary diversary diversary diversary diversary diversary diversary diversary diversary diversary diversary diversary diversary diversary diversary diversary diversary diversary diversary diversary diversary diversary diversary diversary diversary divesary diversary divesary.

3) Determination as to the assertion of negligence in the process observation neglect and treatment after surgery

The plaintiffs' assertion alone is difficult to readily conclude that there was negligence on the defendant hospital, and the facts acknowledged earlier and the purport of the statement No. 4 added to the above facts, i.e., the deceased complained of the pain and some heat symptoms from the date of the operation, and ii) the defendant hospital administered mecheric control and antibioticic agents in consideration of the probability of symptoms caused by temporary heat and infection caused by anesthesia after the operation, and continuously implemented mecherication, etc. (as a result, it appears that the 6th anniversary of the operation of the deceased's 10th day after the operation, it appears that the 1st day after the operation that the 2nd day after the 7th day after the operation that the 1st day after the 1st day after the 2nd day after the 7th day after the 2nd day after the 7th day after the 1st day after the 1st day after the 20th day after the 2nd day after the 2nd day after the 2nd day after the operation.

4) Determination on the assertion of violation of the duty to explain

A) Whether the duty of explanation has been violated

(1) In principle, a doctor in charge provides a patient with an opportunity to avoid significant consequences by explaining the symptoms of a disease, the details and necessity of treatment or diagnosis methods and the potential risks of the occurrence of a disease before the act, etc. and by selecting whether the patient is entitled to receive the medical act by exercising his/her right to self-determination, and if the patient loses the opportunity due to his/her failure to explain it, a doctor is obliged to suffer mental distress due to the loss of his/her right to self-determination if the patient loses the opportunity.

In addition, the duty to explain is a procedural measure that is naturally required for a doctor in the course of coming back to a habitive medical practice, and it is extremely easy for a doctor to prove the fulfillment of the duty to explain through a document, while it is extremely difficult for the patient to prove that the duty to explain has not been fulfilled on the side of the patient, barring any special circumstance, to interpret that the doctor is liable for the duty to explain to the doctor for the performance of the duty to explain, the ideal of the damage compensation system and the demand for uniform interpretation of the legal system (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da5867, May 31, 2007).

(2) According to the statements in this case, the defendant hospital prior to the execution of the surgery in question, No. 6-4, stated that the surgery in the written consent of the operation in question is a flasium (or flasium or flasium), a flasium (or flasium or flasium), a flasium operation (or flasium or flasium), and a flasium operation method in a flasium method. In the case of the above 4 cancer, the operation in question is merely a flasium flasium flasium, etc., and there is no provision that the whole surgery can be flasiumed according to the patient's condition while the operation in question, and there is no other provision that the operation in question would be accompanied by other organs that the defendant hospital provided with consent to it at the time of the operation in question.

Furthermore, the Korean Medical Association which has appraised the medical records of the deceased has examined the opinions expressed in the result of the clinical examination of the deceased's internal condition and clothes, and pelvis crypology test of the defendant hospital of the deceased. As a result, it has advantages in treating the deceased as a clinical event 4th period, in the case of the dynamic cancer 4th period, it can be said that the whole of the above cases can be cut off and the other long-term cancer can be cut off at the same time. On the other hand, there is a need to carefully determine whether to implement the crypology test in consideration of patient's age, health condition, etc., and there is no possibility that the defendant hospital might have tried to select another long-term crypology prior to the crypology of the deceased, and there is no possibility that the above crypology surgery may be conducted by giving more specific explanation or risk of other surgery than the above crypology method or risk of the crypology surgery.

Therefore, the Defendant hospital violated the deceased’s right to self-determination by failing to fulfill the above duty to explain, and thus, the Defendant hospital is obligated to compensate the deceased for damages caused by the deceased’s breach of the duty to explain.

B) Scope of damages

(1) On the part of the patient who violated the duty to explain and performed an operation to the patient and caused a serious result to the patient, the patient has lost the opportunity to choose and is unable to exercise the right to self-determination.

In the case of claiming consolation money only, it is sufficient to prove the fact that the patient lost an opportunity for choice due to lack of explanation or lack of explanation, and it does not have to prove that the patient would have suffered no significant result if he received the explanation. However, when claiming compensation for all damages as a result, there is a proximate causal relation between the result of the serious result and the doctor's breach of duty of explanation or the process of acquiring consent. In this case, the breach of duty of explanation should be the same degree as that of the patient's breach of duty of care required in the specific process of treatment of the patient's life and body, in light of the fact that the patient's duty of explanation is to protect the patient's right of self-determination or opportunity for choice for treatment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da29666, Apr.

As to the instant case, it is difficult to conclude that the death of the deceased was caused by the instant surgery, taking full account of the following: (a) the Defendant hospital’s above-mentioned violation of its duty to explain cannot be deemed as having been identical to the deceased’s violation of the duty to explain required during the instant surgery. In light of the result of the medical record appraisal on the president of the Korea Medical Association of Medical Doctors of the Republic of Korea, after the instant surgery, the bones transfer to the deceased was rapidly underway; and (b) the average life period of the 4th period of sexual cancer in progress with another long-term period of time was in progress; and (c) it is difficult to conclude that the death of the deceased was caused by the instant surgery.

Therefore, the defendant hospital's violation of the duty to explain is recognized only as compensation for mental suffering which has a proximate causal relation caused the deceased's failure to exercise his right to self-determination or loss of his opportunity to choose due to lack of explanation or lack of the doctor's explanation.

(2) Furthermore, in determining and implementing the instant surgery, the Defendant hospital’s explanation in light of the amount of consolation money to the deceased, and all the circumstances shown in the argument of the instant case, including the following: (a) the deceased’s age, occupation, and occupation; and (b) the degree of non-violation of the explanation of the Defendant hospital; and (c) the progress after the instant surgery.

Therefore, it is reasonable to view consolation money for the Deceased as KRW 20 million.

(3) The facts that the plaintiffs succeeded to the deceased's property are as seen earlier. Accordingly, the plaintiffs inherited the above claim for consolation money against the defendant hospital of the deceased within the scope of KRW A8, KRW 571, KRW 428 ( = 20 million x KRW 3/7, KRW 3/7), Plaintiff B, and C, respectively, KRW 5,714, and KRW 285 ( = 20 million x below KRW 20,000, KRW 2/7, and KRW 285) according to their respective inheritance shares.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, the defendant hospital's heir to the plaintiff A, who is the deceased, 8, 571, 428 won, the plaintiff B, and C.

Each of 5, 714, 285 won and each of them, from July 25, 2012, the date of death of the deceased, to April 22, 2015, which is appropriate for the Defendant Hospital to dispute over the existence and scope of its performance, shall be liable to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum prescribed by the Civil Act and 20% per annum prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment.

3. Determination as to the claim of the succeeding intervenor

The successor intervenor paid a total of KRW 9,297,530 to the plaintiff A, who is the bereaved family of the deceased, as a survivor pension. Since the death of the deceased was due to the negligence of the defendant hospital, the defendant hospital asserts that the defendant hospital is obligated to pay the above amount with the amount of indemnity to the successor intervenor. However, since the survivor pension compensates the loss of lost income, which is a small loss, due to its nature, there is no room to acknowledge it in this case where only the consolation money, the nature of which is different, is determined. Accordingly, the prior intervenor's assertion on a different premise is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims against the defendant are justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the plaintiffs' remaining claims against the defendant and the successor's claims against the defendant are dismissed without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Ahn Dai-chul

Judges promotion and exchange