손해배상(의)
1. The plaintiff (appointed party)'s appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Appointed Party).
1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation as to this case is as follows, except for the second to sixth to sixth to the first instance judgment’s reasoning, the part concerning the fifth to sixth to the fifth is as follows, and thus, it is identical to the reasoning of the first instance judgment. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
According to the result of the medical record appraisal entrustment to the Samsung Seoul Hospital Head of the first instance court, it can be acknowledged that the risk of cerebrovascular is more than 1/3, such as the deceased. Thus, it is difficult to regard the result of the death of the deceased as a result of not administering the exclusive use of blood, and rather, if the cerebrs are administered exclusively for blood, it seems that the death rate was higher due to the side effects of the cerebrssis. In light of the fact that the medical personnel of the defendant hospital did not give medical treatment to the deceased, which is subject to the doctor's duty to explain, is not an invasion on the deceased, and it is difficult to view that the patient's selection by the patient's own decision is required as a result of the clinical medical examination guidelines at the time, and therefore, it cannot be viewed as subject to the duty to explain by the medical personnel of the defendant hospital.
The Plaintiff asserted upon the Plaintiff’s request that the Defendant hospital violated the duty to explain by failing to perform his/her duty of explanation by explaining the plan for the withdrawal of the exclusive use of blood to the deceased at the emergency room around January 24, 201, and the Plaintiff and the appointed person E, even though he/she explained the plan for the withdrawal of the exclusive use of blood, etc. to the deceased. Therefore, there is no content about the plan for the withdrawal of the exclusive use of blood to the deceased at the time of the medical record, and there is no way to obtain the consent of the Plaintiff’s guardian in consideration of the side effects in the case of the administration of the exclusive use of blood, and the explanation, time, and place of the Plaintiff’s assertion.