[1] In a claim for damages caused by medical malpractice, whether the causal relationship may be presumed in cases where the injured party proves that there is a medical malpractice, and that there is no other cause than the medical practice, between the negligence and the negligence (affirmative), and whether the doctor bears the burden of proving the negligence (negative)

[2] The case denying the existence of medical malpractice on the ground that it is not enough to recognize that a wall was immediately after an operation, and that there is no evidence to acknowledge the relation between a tent and a heart design, in case where cardiopulmonary stop occurred after a wall dressing was conducted

[1] Article 750 of the Civil Act; Articles 202 and 288 of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Article 750 of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 93Da52402 delivered on February 10, 1995 (Gong1995Sang, 1281) Supreme Court Decision 2001Da20127 delivered on November 27, 2003 (Gong2004Sang, 5)

Plaintiff 1 and three others (Attorneys Hong Sung-chul et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant medical corporation (Attorneys Ansan-hoo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2004Na9567 delivered on June 28, 2005

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1, 2, and 3

The ground of appeal on this part is that the medical personnel of the Defendant-affiliated hospital violated the duty to explain the so-called "recogniz removal", and there was negligence in failing to perform the duty to explain the regratization in advance, and that there was negligence in failing to perform the duty to explain the regratation in advance, which is first asserted in the final appeal, and it cannot be a legitimate ground

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 4

As a field of medical practice requires highly specialized knowledge, it is extremely difficult for a general person, who is not an expert, to clarify whether a doctor has violated the duty of care in the course of medical practice, or whether there exists causation between the violation of such duty of care and the damage, in a claim for damages arising from a violation of the duty of care in the course of medical practice, the victim's act of medical negligence based on the ordinary common sense cannot be verified in the course of a series of medical practice in the victim's damages claim, and there is no other cause except a series of medical practice between the result and the result. On the other hand, in a case where the patient proves that there was no health defect that could not cause such a result before the medical practice, the burden of proving the causal relationship between the medical negligence and the result should be mitigated (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Da52402, Feb. 10, 1995). In this case, the patient's burden of proof should not be imposed on the patient without fault in the process of a series of medical practice.

Examining the records in light of the above legal principles, the court below was just in finding that the plaintiff 1 was diagnosed as acutely unexploited gate in the emergency room of the defendant hospital on March 7, 2000, and it was hard for the plaintiff 1 to find out the 18:0 of the 22:0 of the 17th day after removing the gate gate, and it was hard for the plaintiff 1 to find the 10th day after the gate gate gate gate gate was used to find the gate gate gate because it was difficult for the plaintiff 1 to use the gate gate gate as a gate gate gate, and there was no change in the gate gate gate 1 to find that the gate gate gate gate 1 had been used to find it possible to use the gate gate gate gate mar gate gate gate mar, and there was no change in the gate gate mar gate mar gate mar mar.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and 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 Lee Hong-hoon (Presiding Justice)