손해배상(의)
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The reasons why the cited party members of the judgment of the court of first instance should explain this case are as follows, except for adding the following judgments as to the matters alleged in the court of first instance, and therefore, they are quoted by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Additional matters to be determined;
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) The medical doctor in charge of the Defendant Hospital did not explain to the Plaintiffs regarding the merger certificate that may arise during the surgery, other treatment methods, and drug law, and thereby violated the duty to explain. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs’ right to select treatment methods was infringed.
(2) The physician in charge of the Defendant Hospital caused the death of the deceased by negligence, such as: (a) the deceased showed the hidden symptoms and urine decline after the operation; (b) the deceased’s surgery on September 30, 2012 in excess of the injection amount of LASIX (LAX); and (c) neglecting monitoring the deceased.
B. (1) According to the statement of evidence No. 14 of the defendant hospital No. 1-2, on September 26, 2012, 2012, a doctor of the defendant hospital explained the process and method of the operation to the deceased's family members including the plaintiff A on September 26, 2012, including the process of the operation, the content and degree of the aftermath, and the type and degree of the complications that may be caused by telegraphic anesthesia. Such facts and the deceased had a pain on both sides since six years before the defendant hospital, and even after two months before the defendant hospital had passed through pains, they did not respond to the Pharmaceutical Act, such as the lack of pains, and it appears that there was no particular treatment method other than the operation, the above plaintiffs' assertion that the right to select the explanation and treatment method was infringed is without merit.
(2) In addition, the following circumstances, which are generally accepted by comprehensively taking account of the descriptions of Gap evidence No. 4-2 and Eul evidence No. 12-12 and the overall purport of pleadings, are as follows: