2013Da17179 (Definition)

A

1. B hospital:

2. C.

3. D;

Seoul High Court Decision 2011Na83242 Decided January 17, 2013

January 29, 2015

The part of the lower judgment against Defendant B Hospital and Defendant C is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. The remainder of the appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal incurred between the Plaintiff and Defendant D are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. A physician has the 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 his/her duties to handle 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 field, such as a medical institution, at the time of performing the medical practice. The level of medical care shall be determined at a normative level, based on the generally known medical doctor at the time of the medical practice, as well as on the environment and conditions of the medical practice, and the unique characteristics of the medical practice (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da45146, November 10, 201)

2. Review of the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record reveals the following facts.

A. On September 1, 2008, the Plaintiff was hospitalized in F Hospital located in Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-si, Sungnam-si, and received the instant personal injury, etc. from Defendant C, a doctor, on the right satisfaction part of the Defendant C, and discharged on September 16, 2008.

B. On September 19, 2008, the Plaintiff moved to the F Hospital in Korea, and the result of the diagnosis was the result of the surgery’s view that the operation division lsheet and lited, and the Defendant C prescribed the following anti-biotics, which inhaled, pressured, and fixed the above litrouts.

C. On October 8, 2008, when the Plaintiff re-enters the F Hospital, he showed to the department of the surgery, and on November 5, 2008, he was provided with saccine saccine saccine saccine saccine saccine saccine saccine saccines, and on November 5, 2008. (d) On November 28, 2008, the Plaintiff saccined the F Hospital to the F Hospital, which was located in the department of the department of the operation of the Plaintiff at that time, and applied to the I Hospital located in the department of the department of the I Hospital at that time, and the medical record of the I Hospital at that time stated that the Plaintiff saccin saccins, saccine, saccins, and as a whole, the part

E. Accordingly, around November 30, 2008, the medical professionals of the hospital conducted an cryptive surgery on the Plaintiff’s above creative parts, and combined it. From December 3, 2008 to June 1, 2009, continuously conducted cryping on the Plaintiff’s above creative parts. At the Plaintiff’s request, the medical professionals transferred the Plaintiff to H Hospital operated by Defendant B Hospital on June 1, 2009.

F. On June 2, 2009, the medical personnel at H Hospital Hall confirmed that the part of the part on the right edge side of the Plaintiff, other than the right edge of the Plaintiff, was damaged, and the Plaintiff was convicted of the part on sexual intercourse.

G. On June 8, 2009, the Plaintiff was hospitalized in the H Hospital. On the following day from the medical personnel of H Hospital, the Plaintiff was hospitalized in the H Hospital, and received re-fluoring of the instant glass plate using the re-fluoral re-fluoring divating procedure on the windows of the right side and the right side plate of the right side. Even if the blood cycle of the free-fluoring procedure was successful in the case of re-fluoring of the free-fluoring procedure, the result after the surgery may not be good.

H. From June 13, 2009, medical personnel in H Hospital stuffed the skin of the skin on the right light of the Plaintiff’s right light. On June 16, 2009, medical personnel in H Hospital stuffed the skin of the skin on the right light. From June 16, 2009, Jin Hospital conducted Jin Hospital mincing Jincing on the right light. On July 3, 2009, the Plaintiff’s right light and the Plaintiff’s right light, etc., conducted the instant skin surgery, and at the same time, conducted the farming dog and spacing on the right side floor of the right light.

I. On July 30, 2009, the Plaintiff discharged from H Hospital and hospitalized at I Hospital on August 2, 2009. The following day, as a result of the medical examination, the Plaintiff’s safined the skin that was transplanted on the right edge of the Plaintiff and was exposed to the safinium, and the blood cycle of the safin was not good, and the safined saf in the upper part of the saf in the upper part of the safinium, No. 1, No. 4, and No. 5.

B. On September 8, 2009, the Plaintiff, at the time, returned to H Hospital on September 4, 2009, was in the state where she was dynasium, she was dynasium, and synasium, synasium, synasium, and synasium, synasium, synasium, synasium, synasium, synasium, etc.,

(k) At the time of the Plaintiff’s hospitalization at H Hospital on June 8, 2009, the Plaintiff had avoided only one cigarette per day for 20 years, and was recorded as being in smoking at present. However, it is known that the smoking is likely to interfere with the supply of damaged organizations, such as oxygen, nutrients, etc. necessary for the treatment of the damaged organization or creative nature by inducing the reduction of the humcon, humconium or maternal transfusion, etc., and that the blood cycle should be omitted.

3. As to the appeal against the defendant C

A. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that the plaintiff was discharged on September 1, 2008 from the defendant C on September 16, 2008 after receiving the human refeitation, etc. of this case from the defendant C on September 16, 2008, and that there was no opinion that the plaintiff could cause internal rupture, such as skin and annual installments, loss of the organization in the course of receiving the medical treatment from the defendant C, and that there was no opinion that the plaintiff would have caused internal rupture, such as the internal rupture in the course of receiving the treatment from the defendant C, and it is difficult to recognize that the plaintiff's situation was the situation requiring rupture, antibiotics response test, blood test, etc., and otherwise, the court below determined that the defendant C did not err in failing to properly

B. However, we cannot accept the above determination by the court below for the following reasons.

Examining the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, despite the continued treatment after the Plaintiff received the instant personal injury, etc., the status of the Plaintiff’s creative disorder of the surgery division continuously aggravated beyond the extended period of time after the surgery, and the Plaintiff received the surgery division’s outline and the surgery.

On the other hand, it can be deemed that the previous antibiotics alone did not have sufficient medical treatment effects for the Plaintiff. Accordingly, Defendant C should select and treat other appropriate antibiotics not having been administered in the past through a spawning test, antibiotics reaction test, etc., but rather through a spawning test, and so long as this has not been implemented, there is considerable room to regard Defendant C as being negligent in observation treatment after an operation.

Nevertheless, the lower court determined that Defendant C was not negligent for the reasons stated in its reasoning. In so doing, the lower court erred by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations for recognizing negligence in observational treatment after a doctor’s surgery, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the doctor’s duty of care in medical practice, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

4. As to the appeal against Defendant B Hospital

A. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court determined that it is difficult to view that the causal link between the failure to conduct the test and the Plaintiff’s actual results is recognized, in light of the following: (a) the fact of the judgment, and the fact that there was no special opinion in addition to the overall saccinic safic safic safic safic safic safic safic safic safic safic safic safic safic safic safic safic safic safic

B. However, it is difficult to accept the above judgment of the court below for the following reasons.

Examining the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, given that in the case of the instant glass re-dried surgery performed by the medical personnel of the H Hospital, if the blood circulation at the level of whether to accept it is good, the birth of the donor may have failed and the ring of the surrounding parts may occur, it should have determined the time and method of surgery, etc. by ascertaining whether to accept it prior to the treatment. However, the Plaintiff has smoked for more than 20 years a day, and the Plaintiff was already in the operation for more than 6 months prior to the instant glass re-dried surgery, even if he had not been completely cured even if he had undergone several times due to climatic and climatic problems for more than 6 months before the instant glass re-dried surgery, and was suspected of suffering from infection and blood circulation disorder at the time when he was in the H Hospital, the time and method of surgery after identifying the Plaintiff’s blood cycle surgery, etc. as a blood cycle surgery, and the Plaintiff’s blood cycle surgery, etc. was performed more accurately.

In doing so, the medical personnel at H Hospital was negligent in failing to conduct the examination and treatment required for the so-called freeboard re-act, and there is considerable room to view that there is a causal link between such medical malpractice and the Plaintiff’s bad consequence.

Nevertheless, the court below determined that there was no negligence or causation with Defendant B Hospital on the grounds stated in its reasoning. In so doing, the court below erred by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations to recognize doctor's medical malpractice, by misapprehending the legal principles on doctor's duty of care and human relation in medical practice, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

5. As to the appeal against Defendant D, the court of final appeal may investigate and determine only to the extent of filing an appeal based on the grounds of final appeal. As such, the grounds of final appeal should specify the grounds of final appeal in detail and clearly explain how the lower court violated the relevant statute (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Da40847, Nov. 27, 2008).

The Plaintiff filed an appeal against Defendant D’s portion of the lower judgment, but did not submit any grounds for objection to the appeal.

6. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against Defendant B Hospital and Defendant C is reversed and remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. The Plaintiff’s appeal against Defendant D is dismissed. This part of the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Jae-sik et al.

Justices Shin Jae-young in charge

Justices Lee Sang-hoon

Justices Cho Jong-hee