Law Firm Jinjin, Attorneys Park Yong-han et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

A. The Plaintiff is an emergency medical specialist working in the emergency department in the Seo-gu Incheon Metropolitan City C Hospital (hereinafter referred to as the “instant hospital”).

B. On January 15, 2018, the Defendant issued a disposition of suspending qualification under Article 5(1)1 and Article 6(2) of the former Emergency Medical Service Act (amended by Act No. 14329, Dec. 2, 2016; hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) on the ground that the Plaintiff, from the situation room on June 19, 2017, was in a state of cardiopulmonary resuscitation by having the Plaintiff undergo telephone conversations from the 15-month situation room, and that he/she is in a state of cardiopulmonary resuscitation for 15-month from the 15-month from the 15-month region, and that the instant hospital may be admitted, but measures were taken to require patients to be another medical institution, and that emergency medical personnel did not provide emergency medical services during his/her duties or refused or avoided a request for emergency medical services without good cause.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1, purport of whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

1) Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion

The monetary content of the situation room in 119 is merely a consultation as to the possibility of accepting a baby of this case, and does not correspond to the "request for emergency medical services" as prescribed by the Act. Thus, the plaintiff's response cannot be considered as the "Refusal of emergency medical services." On the other hand, even if the plaintiff's response constitutes the "Refusal of emergency medical services", the plaintiff expressed that he would be a regional emergency medical center equipped with facilities suitable for the infant of this case in the situation where he previously heard the emergency situation from the nurse at the time and grasps all necessary information, and this is reasonable in view of the characteristics of the medical treatment of the infant of this case, and thus, it does not constitute a case where he refuses or evades the request for emergency medical services without a justifiable reason. Therefore, the reason for the disposition of

2) Summary of the defendant's assertion

The 119 Situation Office’s inquiry constitutes a “request explicitly made by the physician to request the acceptance and first aid of the infant of this case.” Although the instant hospital did not have any specific equipment specialized in the treatment of the infant of this case, the Plaintiff should have examined whether the infant of this case was able to take first aid of the medical equipment currently in possession by listening to or questioning the cause and specific aspects of symptoms that occurred, and by ascertaining the emergency situation accurately, the Plaintiff was required to hear the basic information that the nurse transferred and immediately transfer the infant to another hospital. This constitutes “Refusal of emergency medical treatment” as referred to in Article 6(2) of the Emergency Medical Service Act, and there is no “justifiable cause” for refusal.

B. Relevant statutes

Pursuant to Article 6 (2) of the Act, an emergency medical personnel shall immediately provide emergency medical services when requested to provide emergency medical services or when he/she finds an emergency patient while on duty, and shall not refuse or evade such services without justifiable grounds. According to Article 55 (1) of the Act, where emergency medical personnel violate Article 6 (2) of the Act, the defendant may revoke the license or qualification, or suspend the license or qualification for a fixed period not exceeding six months.

Other related Acts and subordinate statutes shall be as listed in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) On June 19, 2017, the 119 Rescue Situation Office received a structural report that “toy infection from an OOO childcare center located in Seo-gu Incheon, Seo-gu, Incheon, 10:50 (if no separate date is indicated, the statement is omitted)” and issued a dispatch order to an 10:51 nearby first aid unit. Meanwhile, the above child care teacher was inside the infant of this case, and moved to the Emere Emere (hereinafter “the instant member”). At the time of arrival of the instant member, the consciousness of the instant infant was unclear, and the instant infant was 60 / faceed up to two times.

2) The 119 first responds to the instant Council member. The doctors E and first responds to the instant Council member’s 10:56. While continuing to perform cardiopulmonary resuscitation, the above Council member attempted to remove foreign substances suffering from knife or knife knife, but failed to perform the said grife gying treatment.

3) On-site emergency medical services workers requested the 119 Situation Room to verify emergency medical institutions capable of receiving a closed infant even at the 119 Situation Room. Accordingly, the 119 Situation Room currencyed the following contents with the nurse F of the emergency hospital of this case where the Plaintiff was working:01.

A person shall be appointed.

4) The 119 situation room asked the same content as the H Hospital, and was notified by the H Hospital that the instant infant may be accommodated.

5) From the 119 situation room, on the part of the on-site emergency medical services workers, transported the infant of this case to G Hospital with a guide to the G Hospital upon the non-acceptance of the instant hospital. While on-site emergency medical services workers were carrying the infant of this case on the first-aid vehicle, the heart stop was over and the heart shock period was operated. The first-aid vehicle started the instant Council member and arrived at G Hospital 11:26 on June 27, 2017, but the instant infant of this case was judged brain death on the day and died on June 27, 2017.

6) The distance from the instant clinic to the instant hospital is about 4.1km, and the distance to the G hospital is about 11.4 meters. The instant hospital is a regional emergency medical center, G hospital, and H hospital is a regional emergency medical center. According to relevant laws and regulations, the regional emergency medical center shall separately prepare an area for medical treatment for children emergency patients, and shall be equipped with equipment for securing skills by age, subsidiary smoking, and other age-based appliances, expendable items, etc. for children, and shall have at least one medical specialist in exclusive charge of children emergency patients and at least one exclusive nurse. On the contrary, there is no separate standard for equipment or human resources for children emergency patients. The instant hospital was not equipped with specialized equipment or human resources for children emergency patients as a regional emergency medical center.

7) A child’s attitude has unique characteristics of autopsyologically. Since a child’s diameter is small, it is vulnerable to crypine closure compared to adults, and it is vulnerable to crypology closure by crypology. A patient’s crypology operation accompanied by crypology may worsen the cryp and may result in respiratory paralysis. A major part of crypium, and a child under three years of age accounts for a large amount of crypance, and is placed in front of the crypology compared to adults. A child may have serious blood transfusion if cryp and damaged by cryp, compared to all adults, which form the entrance of the cryp and the crypusp, and thus, it is difficult for crypheric institution to crypology under ten years of age. Therefore, patient’s crypology management should also take into account the change in crypology equipment and capacity of the crypology in accordance with the clinical system.

8) The 119 situation room is identified and recognized as an emergency medical institution within the jurisdiction, and matters concerning the current status of equipment are identified by the Central Emergency Medical Center or emergency medical institution real-time inquiry as necessary. The 119 situation room notifies the relevant hospital in advance so that an emergency patient can be prepared to accommodate an emergency patient while transporting the patient to an emergency medical institution in cases of emergency such as a patient with ordinary heart stop. On the request of on-site emergency medical service workers, the relevant hospital is informed of telephone in advance so that the patient can be prepared to accommodate the patient. The 119 situation room was aware that the instant hospital at the time of the instant case is the nearest regional emergency medical center at the place where the patient occurred, and asks, at the request of on-site emergency medical service workers, whether it is possible to accommodate

9) On January 10, 2018, the prosecutor of the Seoul Southern District Prosecutor’s Office rendered a disposition that “I cannot agree with evidence on the fact that I evaded emergency medical services with respect to the Plaintiff without any justifiable reason.”

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, 9, 10, Eul evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1, and the result of each fact inquiry about the Incheon Fire Headquarters of this Court and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

Considering the following circumstances revealed in light of the above facts, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff’s 119 situation room and call that “the Plaintiff transferred the infant of this case to a regional emergency medical center” does not constitute “the case of refusal or evasion of the request for emergency medical services without justifiable grounds as provided by Article 6(2) of the Act.” Thus, the instant disposition is unlawful as it is not recognized as a ground for disposition.

1) Under the circumstances where on-site emergency medical services workers called to the instant member and the instant member’s physician attempted to provide first aid to the instant infant, and then requested to contact the 119 situation room to check the nearby emergency medical institutions capable of accommodating the abandoned infant even at the 119 situation room. On the said request, the 119 situation room asked the instant hospital, which is a local emergency medical center, and the H hospital, which is a regional emergency medical center, whether the instant infant can be accommodated. On-site emergency medical services workers’ request and the 119 situation room’s response measures were conducted for the purpose of finding the most appropriate medical institution for the additional first aid, taking into account the first first emergency treatment condition for the instant infant.

2) The specific content in which the 119 situation room calls with the Plaintiff (hereinafter “15-month Infant Pesting”) (which may take place and may take place from the CPR as a result of the Plaintiff’s 15-month Infant Pesting) includes an expression that makes it possible to understand to the effect that “the 119 situation room is able to take first aid by accepting the instant infant.”

3) In light of the circumstances and contents of such “119 situation room and the currency between the Plaintiff’s side, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff received “request for emergency medical services” on a conclusive basis. Therefore, it cannot be readily concluded that the Plaintiff refused or avoided “request for emergency medical services” by providing that “15-month infant and child emergency medical service center (with specialized human resources and facilities in an infant emergency patient) is promptly transferred to the competent emergency medical center.”

4) In addition, at the time of the said call, the instant infant had already been transferred to a medical institution that can take more professional first aid after having received the first first aid, such as climatic surgery, and had not yet started from the hospital of this case. Considering the special characteristics of the instant infant patient, it is more appropriate to transfer the instant infant to a nearby regional medical center equipped with human resources and facilities specialized in the infant patient than the instant hospital for the purpose of enhancing the possibility of rehabilitation of the instant infant patient.

3. Conclusion

The claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so accepted as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Jong-Gyeong

Judges Hong Man-mo

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.