Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 00-dong 00 apartments - Dog-gu

Attorney Ba-hee et al., Counsel for the defendant

Attorney Lee Jong-soo et al.

Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 00 - Domb - - a shift nb - straznb

Anthical clinic

Attorney Lee Byung-il, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. 70% of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

Payment of 5% per annum and 20% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment.

the judgment of the court below.

아래 각 사실은 당사자 사이에 다툼이 없거나, 갑 제7호증, 을 제2호증의 기재 또는 영상, 이 법원의 ♥ 병원장에 대한 신체감정촉탁▶, 이 법원의 □△대학교 ♥▦▦▦병원장에 대한 진료기록감정촉탁▶에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면 인정된다 .

A. On October 24, 2007, the Plaintiff was consulted by the Defendant with respect to the marithal resuscitation (the Marithal blocking by high-frequency) (the Marithal blocking by using high-frequency), which was administered by the Defendant on the 27th day of the same month by using the Marithal lathal surgery under high-frequency (hereinafter the 'the instant procedure').

B. On November 3, 2007, after the procedure of this case, the plaintiff filed an appeal for symptoms and pains on the left-hand part of the patriarche of the above Council member, and the defendant prescribed chlorates and flachisiums. On November 10, 2007, the plaintiff filed an appeal for the same symptoms to the above Council member, and the defendant issued a written request for electric power supply.

C. On November 14, 2007, upon the Defendant’s electric power source request, the Plaintiff was diagnosed as a arbitral damage on the outer left side of the Doz.

D. As of July 2009, the Plaintiff’s symptoms of sacrific and sacrific symptoms appear to have a fall in the outer part of the outer part of the outer part of the outer part of the family unit of the left side, and the minor adjacent part of the fifth outer part was observed and diagnosed by the outer part of the incomplete part of the outer part of the family unit due to damage to the outer part of the outer part of the left side. Accordingly, the outer part of the outer part of the family unit of the outer part of the outer part of the outer part of the deceased and the subsequent part of the outer part of the fifth part of the outer part seems to remain permanently.

E. Meanwhile, the damage on the outer side of the incomplete left-hand side of the Plaintiff appears to have been caused by damage to the outer part of the relevant parts, which should have been caused by the damage caused by the damage to the inner part of the relevant part of the maririthal algorisis, which is a source of the outer part of the outer part of the marithal al

F. 1) Principle of Mari-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-

2) Methods: Mereculism is classified into a surgical method and a non-sculing method; Mereculism is classified into an surgical method; Mereculism is classified into a non-sculism; Mereculism using high-frequency; Meculism is one of the Meculism; Meculism is one of the following methods; Meculism using high-concentration alcohol; Meculism is one of the Meculism using high-concentration alcohol; Meculism; 3) side effects or mergers; both methods are dangerous; and the two methods are all dangerous; Meculism, Meculism, and neculism are likely to cause mergers such as Meculism and Meculism; Meculism; and Meculism, Meculism, etc.

4) The negotiology using high frequency : The negotiology using high frequency negotiology is a procedure to find out a physical negotiology that controls non-refluence of negotiology by applying the negotiology principle, and to block non-refluenceal negotition only without damage to other organizations, serums, and virusess.

5) The course of the procedure of the procedure of the procedure of the procedure of the procedure of the procedure of the procedure of the procedure of the procedure using high frequency : The procedure is to identify the exact location of the neutism to be conducted by identifying the location of the neutism of the neutism by using the electric negotiology before the procedure, and to block the neutism by responding to the nepha.

사. 피고가 이 사건 시술 당시 주식회사 ♤이 제조한 고주파 열상발생기 ( 모델명 TC - 50 ) 를 사용하였는데, 위 기계를 사용한 신경차단술의 내용은 ① 종아리 내측 비복 근의 상부 중 종아리 내측 비복근으로 신경이 지나가는 부위 부근에 고주파침을 삽입하고, ② 이어서 고주파침을 통하여 전기자극을 주며, ③ 고주파침이 내측 비복근으로 가는 신경으로부터 1cm 정도까지 접근하면 내측 비복근의 반복적인 수축이 일어나면서 기계상으로 상태 파악이 되며, ④ 내측 비복근의 반복적인 수축이 있는 상태에서 전기자극의 강도를 낮추며, ⑤ 전기자극의 강도가 최대한 낮추어진 상태에서도 내측 비복근의 반복적인 수축이 있으면 내측 비복근으로 가는 신경이 고주파침의 끝에서 3mm 이내에 위치하는 바, 이 때에 전기자극을 고주파 자극으로 바꾸어 고주파를 일으키면 3mm 이내에 위치한 내측 비복근으로 가는 신경을 응고시킬 수 있게 되며, ⑥ 위 과정을 내측 비복근에서 반복하면, 내측 비복근으로 가는 신경과 그의 분지를 완전히 응고시키게 되며, ⑦ 외측 비복근에서도 위와 같은 방법으로 시술하는 것이다 .

2. The parties' assertion

As the cause of the instant claim, the Plaintiff asserted that: (a) although the Defendant had to verify the exact location of the part to be performed by the ultra-wave test, etc. before the instant surgery, the Defendant did not conduct a pre-examination at all; (b) was not in violation of his duty of care to prevent any other psychotropics; and (c) the Plaintiff transferred the Plaintiff to ○○○ Hospital without any basic test even though the Plaintiff complaining of the satisfying symptoms after the surgery; and (d) the Defendant did not explain the risk and side effects of the surgery before the surgery; and (e) caused the Plaintiff’s injury due to negligence not receiving a written consent, the Defendant was obligated to pay the Plaintiff the sum of the property and mental damages incurred by the Plaintiff (20,000,000 won in daily income + 2,350,062 won + 50,000 won in solatium treatment expenses + 50,000,000 won in total).

In regard to this, the Defendant asserts that the high-frequency treatment machinery used by the Defendant during the instant procedure automatically has the function of performing the instant procedure while performing negorisome, and that it is not necessary to conduct a prior inspection to confirm the location of negorith, and that the Plaintiff before the instant procedure provided to the Plaintiff that the negorithic disorder caused by the negorisis caused by the negori pressure, etc. caused by the negori pressure that may occur after the said procedure, and that the negorithic disorder may occur.

2. Determination

(a) the existence of liability;

First of all, in the claim for damages due to violation of the duty of care and health care in relation to the Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) it is established to alleviate the burden of proof in order to estimate the causal relationship between the medical negligence and the Do governor in the case where the Plaintiff proves that there was no health defect that could be the cause of such Do governor before the medical practice had been conducted by the patient; (b) it is not possible to prove the medical negligence on the part of the victim in the course of a series of medical practice in the course of a series of medical practice in the victim’s perspective; and (c) it is established to relieve the patient of the burden of proof so that the patient can be held liable for damages by presumption of the causal relationship between the medical negligence and the Do governor (see Supreme Court Decision 93Da52402 delivered on February 10, 195). In the instant case, according to the above acknowledged facts, the part of the relevant part of the Domone Damone, which is a part of the outer part of the relevant part of the Domone.

However, as seen earlier, although the Defendant did not conduct a pre-examination to verify the location of negorithy before the instant procedure, it is deemed that the Defendant was negligent in conducting the pre-examination without a pre-examination, as it appears that the Defendant performed the procedure while confirming the location of negorithy in the process of the procedure.

Furthermore, in light of the following: (a) the instant treatment may lead to the occurrence of a complication of a non-competence, psychotropic paralysis, etc.; and (b) each individual’s location may vary from an autopsy, and (c) there is a possibility of causing damage to the instant treatment on the part of the Defendant, by checking the location of the instant treatment using high-frequency or electric negoriic system, such as the instant treatment; and (d) preventing the nephism from causing damage to other nephical parts, other than the non-competing nephism, it is difficult to readily conclude that there was a negligence on the part of

다음으로 ③에 관하여 보건대, 이 법원의 □△대학교 ♥▦▦▦병원장에 대한 진료기록감정촉탁▶에 의하면 이 사건 시술과 같은 종아리 퇴축술 후 족저부 통증 등을 호소하는 경우 그 원인을 파악하기 위하여 신경전도검사를 실시하여야 하는 사실, 피고가 통증을 호소하는 원고에 대하여 신경전도검사를 실시하지 않은 사실은 인정되나 , 위 촉탁▶에 나타난 바와 같이 그와 같은 경우에 처치방법으로는 급성기에는 얼음찜 질이나 탄력붕대를 적용할 수 있으나 궁극적으로는 신경 재생을 기다리는 방법 밖에 없다는 점, 피고가 상당한 기간 내에 전원 조치를 취한 점 등에 비추어 보면 위와 같은 사정만으로 피고에게 경과관찰을 해태한 과실이 있다고 보기도 어렵다 .

Finally, in the case where a doctor generally provides a medical act which is highly likely to cause an adverse Do Governor, such as an operation, etc. to a patient, or where a doctor provides a medical act which is predicted to cause a death, etc., he/she has a duty to explain the patient or his/her legal representative about the symptoms, treatment method and necessity of the disease, risks expected to occur, etc. in light of the medical level at the time, and to sufficiently compare the patient's necessity and risk and select whether to receive the medical act (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da5867, May 31, 2007, etc.). According to the evidence No. 7, in the case where a doctor provided a medical act which is anticipated to cause a death, etc., the patient or his/her legal representative, unless there is an emergency patient, or there is any other special circumstance, and the defendant is not obliged to explain the patient or his/her legal representative in the case where he/she fails to meet his/her duty of explanation. However, there is no evidence that the defendant did not have any obligation to explain.

B. The reasons for the scope of liability (calculated as consolation money) 1: The plaintiff's age, family relation, property, and educational degree, the maribal surgery administered by the plaintiff is not an operation to cure disease or military register condition, but an cosmetic surgery to increase the marithal system, and the method of the procedure is also very satisfying by blocking non-satisfying satisfying and eventually extinguishing non-satisfying. As seen earlier, it is explained that the procedure is an operation to block non-satisfying satch only without any damage to other organization, blood, and ne, but as seen earlier, it is likely to cause damage to other marithal parts without selective blocking only, and it is not a marithal surgery for the purpose of treating marithal, but a 0-year 0-year satisfy treatment, and it is not a 0-year satisfy treatment.

4. Conclusion

If so, the defendant 15,00,000 won and its procedure date of this case to the plaintiff. < Amended by Act No. 817, Oct. 10, 2007>

27. From July 20, 201, which is the date of this decision, the plaintiff is obligated to pay 5% per annum until July 20, 2010, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment. Thus, the plaintiff is obligated to pay damages for delay calculated from October 24, 2007, which is the date of counseling with the defendant (if the plaintiff claimed damages for delay from October 24, 2007, which is the date of counseling with the defendant, but if the claim occurred due to the violation of the duty to explain, it shall be deemed at least the date of procedure). The plaintiff's claim of this case shall be partially accepted within the scope

2) In common sense, 'Agrestal’ can be seen as a snow’