beta
(영문) 부산지방법원 2017.09.13 2016가합48375

손해배상(의)

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On November 2007, the Plaintiff received an operation to add fin2 to spine with the original escape certificate (HLD) via the HLD, on May 11, 2015, the Plaintiff replaced fin2, which was inserted into spine by Defendant C, a doctor affiliated with the above hospital, at the hospital located in Ulsan-gu (hereinafter “Defendant Foundation”) located in Ulsan-gu operated by the Defendant Medical Corporation B (hereinafter “Defendant Foundation”), by the replacement of fin2, which was inserted into spine from Defendant C, a doctor affiliated with the above hospital, and received an operation to additionally add find one.

(hereinafter “instant surgery”). B.

After the instant surgery, the Plaintiff complained of symptoms in which both the floor and the left part of the floor of this case are low and mast, and the symptoms of the Mali-si were shown on both sides and the Mali-si on October 19, 2015.

C. At present, the Plaintiff shows the loss, etc. of flaging function due to the loss of flaging function due to the fact that the current flag balutism, etc., and the deterioration of flaging function (hereinafter “instant symptoms”).

[Ground of recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Gap evidence 3-1, 2, Gap evidence 4-1, 5, Gap evidence 5-2, 6, Eul evidence 2 and 8, the result of physical examination of the F Hospital Head of this Court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) Defendant C added fin1 to the Plaintiff’s spine in the process of the instant surgery, and did not explain or obtain consent thereto; and (b) caused the symptoms of the instant case to severely pressure or damage anus and booming fin replacement to the wind of the instant surgery.

Therefore, Defendant C is a tort, and Defendant C is jointly and severally liable for damages incurred by the Plaintiff as the employer of Defendant C.

B. 1) Medical practice is an area where highly specialized knowledge is required for the medical practice on the grounds of erroneous assertion (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da1548, Apr. 2,