[2] The case holding that in a case where Party A’s university hospital conducted a genetic tissue test on Party B and conducted a confirmed diagnosis on cancer; Party B’s university hospital submitted the result of tissue testing to Party B’s hospital, and submitted the result of tissue testing, which included the result of tissue testing to Party B’s hospital, and submitted the result of tissue testing to Party C’s hospital, which was subject to re-verification, and it was found that Party A’s hospital and medical personnel made Party B’s slick while attaching the slick to other patient’s tissue body in the process of not detecting cancer cells and re-verification of cancer cells as a result of tissue testing, it is difficult to view that Party C’s doctor had a duty of care to perform slick medication after collecting a new tissue from Party C’s body

[2] The case holding that in a case where Gap's hospital's doctor was found to have attached labels to the other patient's body while making the Gap hospital's disease and medical team's tissue scambling surgery at Byung university hospital by submitting the result of tissue testing to Eul's university hospital, which included the result of tissue testing at Eul's hospital's hospital, and submitted the result of tissue testing at Byung university hospital, but did not detect cancer cells as a result of scambling tissue testing at Eul hospital, and it was confirmed that Byung hospital's disease and medical team scambling the detection of cancer cells at Eul hospital, and attached labels to the other patient's body during the process of re-verification of tissue testing at Eul hospital's hospital's tissue scambling, etc., it is difficult to see that Byung hospital's doctor newly recovered tissues from Eul in preparation for very exceptional circumstances such as possibility that the tissue body changes after the tissue testing during the process of tissue testing at Gap hospital's hospital's scambling surgery and performing re-verification after borrowing.

1. As to the appeal by Defendant Seoul National University Hospital or Defendant 2

A. As to the first ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the reasoning of the first instance judgment cited by the lower court, the lower court determined that the Plaintiff’s 2-1 and the Defendant’s 2-1-2-2-2-2-1-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-3-2-3-2-3-4-2-2-2-2-2-3-2-4-2-2-2-2-3-2-3-3-4-4-2-3-2-3-4-4-2-4-2-3-2-3-2-4-2-4-2-3-2-4-2-4-2-4-4-2-3-3-2-4-4-4-2-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-7-4-7-7-7-7-7-

The allegation in the grounds of appeal as to this part is that the Plaintiff, at the time when the Plaintiff was admitted to the Seoul National University Hospital, was aware that it was subject to more accurate diagnosis as to the extent of anti-defensivesives by the Syna Hospital. However, this is merely an error of the lower court’s selection of evidence or fact-finding, which belongs to the exclusive jurisdiction of the lower court, and thus cannot be a legitimate ground of appeal

B. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 2, 3, and 4

(1) The lower court determined that Defendant 2, who is the doctor of the Seoul National University Hospital, had the duty of care to accurately diagnose whether the Plaintiff’s right-hand fluids are cancer and to determine whether to conduct the operation, on the grounds that there are errors in the process of collecting tissue and manufacturing the tissue block and the tissue inspection sludge, and that Defendant 2, who is the doctor of the Seoul National University Hospital, had the duty of care to accurately diagnose and determine whether the Plaintiff’s right-hand fluids are cancer, such as collecting tissue and re-satising tissue, and borrowing tissue and re-satison block, the lower court failed to perform the instant operation without any specific inspection, in addition to believing and promoting only the result of the organization inspection conducted by the Spanish Hospital.

(2) However, it is difficult to accept the above determination by the court below for the following reasons.

A physician has a duty of care to take the best measures required to prevent risks depending on the patient’s specific symptoms or circumstances in light of the nature of the duties of managing the patient’s life, body, and health, and such duty of care shall be based on the level of medical practice performed in the clinical medical field, such as medical institutions, at the time of the medical practice. The level of medical care refers to the so-called medical consciousness generally known and recognized and recognized at the time of the medical practice, and thus, it should be identified at a normative level in light of the environment and conditions of medical treatment, the peculiarity of the medical practice, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Da45185, Oct. 28, 2004, etc.).

According to the result of the examination of the medical records entrusted to the head of the first instance court, in a case where the examination of the examination of the medical records for the head of the relevant hospital was conducted through the organization examination, and a certain university hospital conducted the organization examination for the patient, and submitted the result of the organization examination, which included the result of the organization examination in the previous university hospital while transferring the patient to another university hospital, if the patient submitted the result of the organization examination to the previous university hospital, there is a case where the doctor of the new university hospital conducted the examination of the patient re-execution of the medical records after obtaining a loan of the previous organization inspection slot, but the organization examination itself is not in principle re-execution.

In addition, according to the result of the examination of the medical records on the director of the National University, the court below's request for the examination of the medical records on the director of the National University of the Gangwon-nam Hospital, where the recovered tissue for the examination of the tissue is insufficient or inappropriate, the organization inspection may be conducted again, and it is not necessary to repeatedly conduct the organization inspection if it can be conducted by one organizational inspection.

As a result of the examination of each of the above medical records, there was no circumstance to doubt the outcome of the determination of the “fluort cancer” by the pathology and the medical staff of the Slves hospital, as the organization examination of the Slves hospital was conducted immediately before the instant operation, and the organization examination was kept in the Slves Hospital, which served as the basis for the determination of cancer at the Slves Hospital, and thus, if necessary, the organization examination slveddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd.

On the other hand, the plaintiff did not believe the result of the diagnosis of the Synae Hospital and was within the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Hospital in order to receive a correct diagnosis again as to whether the synae of the right bank is cancer, and the plaintiff's synaeam was not in an imminent situation in which the synae in the initial state, so it can be deemed that the defendant 2 had a duty of care to obtain organizational inspection synaeds from the Synae Hospital to obtain organizational inspection syedstys in preparation for the possibility of the syenasium's syenasium's syenasium's syenasium's syenasium's syenasium's syenasium's syenasium's syenasium's syenasium's s

(3) Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the doctor’s duty of care in medical practice or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, where Defendant 2 was negligent in failing to perform the duty of care as an average required by the doctor who performed the relevant flexiblely required medical treatment on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning.

The grounds of appeal by Defendant Seoul National University Hospital and Defendant 2 on this point are with merit.

2. As to the appeal by Defendant school juristic person’s annual household school

The lower court determined that there was a proximate causal link between the Plaintiff’s structural inspection slive error and the Plaintiff’s damage caused by the instant surgery, on the ground that the Defendant Seoul National University Hospital, which received the result of the organizational inspection, entered the Plaintiff’s right-side slive base into a slive base of the Plaintiff’s right-side slive base by attaching the Plaintiff’s label to the body of other patients with cancer cells while making the Plaintiff’s organizational inspection slived, and the Defendant University University Hospital, which received the result of the organizational inspection, performed a wrong gene sliver operation by reliance on it, as the user of the slives hospital pathology and the medical team.

In light of the records, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable.

The court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principle as to proximate causal relation as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on Defendant Seoul National University Hospital and Defendant 2’s remaining grounds of appeal, the part of the judgment below against the above Defendants is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. The appeal by Defendant Educational Foundation’s annual household school is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices

Justices Yang Chang-soo (Presiding Justice)