(a) Where conditions exist between the primary accident and the secondary accident, the scope of the person who caused the primary accident shall be limited;

(b) Duty of care required for a doctor in charge prior to performing an operation requiring general anesthesia;

A. If the victim died due to a second accident (medical accident) in the course of the treatment of the victim suffering from an injury, and there is a condition that there was no proximate causal relation between the said accident, but would not have occurred if the second accident had not occurred, the perpetrator of the first accident is liable to compensate only the amount of damage calculated by only the second accident, without considering the death caused by the second accident.

B. The doctor in charge has a duty of care to conduct an operation requiring telegraphic anesthesia after thoroughly examining whether the patient's liver function has been performed even when the patient was performed, by seeking advice from a medical specialist, in addition to the ordinary liver function test, and thoroughly checking whether the patient's liver function has been normal.

(a) Articles 763 and 393 of the Civil Act;

[Plaintiff-Appellant] 156 decided Apr. 24, 1979 (Law No. 763(33) of the Civil Code No. 1319, No. 6123 decided Apr. 24, 197

Plaintiff 1 and six others

Defendant 1 and two others

1. The defendant 1 and the defendant 1 corporation shall pay 3,028,323 won to the plaintiff 1 and 2,528,323 won to the plaintiff 2,3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 each amount of 1,852,215 won and 5% per annum from April 7, 1988 to June 16, 1989, and 25% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

2. Defendants 2 and 3 shall pay 1,281,250 won to each of plaintiffs 1, 781,250 won, 781,250 won to plaintiffs 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 respectively, and 687,500 won to each of them, and 5% per annum from April 7, 1988 to June 16, 1989, and 25% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

3. The plaintiffs' remaining claims against the defendants are dismissed.

4. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the plaintiffs and the defendant 1 corporation is five minutes and the remaining part is five minutes, and the part arising between the same defendant, the same defendant, the plaintiffs and the defendant 2 and the defendant 3 is five minutes, and that 4 is the plaintiffs, and the remaining part is the same defendant's expenses.

5. The above paragraphs 1 and 2 above can be provisionally executed.

The Defendants jointly and severally pay to Plaintiff 1 4,474,288 won and 4,474,288 won to Plaintiff 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 each amount equal to 3,316,192 won and 25 percent per annum from the day following the delivery of the complaint of this case to the day of full payment.

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendants and a provisional execution declaration.

1. Determination as to the claim against Defendant 1 Company

(a) Occurrence of liability for damages;

The above evidence No. 1 (O. 2), No. 3 (O. 2), No. 1 (O. 1), No. 1 (O. 2), No. 8 (O. 2), and No. 4 (O. 7) deemed that the authenticity of the part of the private document is established by the witness Non-Party 1's testimony, and the testimony No. 7 (O. 2), and the testimony of the above witness and Non-Party 2 (O. 2's testimony of the above 3-O. 4 meters away from the above 5-O.S. 4 meters away from the above 4-O. Mad Co. 1's Mad Co. 2's Mad Co. 2's Mad Co. 2's Mad Co., Ltd.'s Mad Co., Ltd.'s Mad Co., Ltd.'s Mad Co., Ltd.'s Mad Co. 2's Mad's Mad').

According to the above facts of recognition, even if the defendant company should have installed the bricks and drums for the safety of the deceased, the defendant company should have installed a sufficient width of the above drums to the extent that it does not impede the work, but it caused the above accident by installing a narrow drums as above. Thus, as the possessor of the above drums, the defendant drum is liable to compensate for the damages suffered by the deceased and the plaintiffs due to the defect in the installation and preservation of the above drums.

However, according to each testimony from the above, the above deceased should have exercised a careful care so that he could not be able to take a sloping part in his own safety, but he could be found to have suffered the above accident while neglecting to do so. Since such negligence of the above deceased was the cause of the above accident, it should be considered in calculating the amount of damages to be compensated by the defendant, it should be considered in light of the above facts. However, the comparative negligence ratio should be considered to the extent of 40 percent in light of the above facts.

(b) Scope of damages;

(1) Judgment on the plaintiffs' assertion

Even if the above deceased company died due to the above mistake on the part of the defendant company, and the defendant company provided two causes for the death of the deceased together with the remaining Defendants. Thus, according to the evidence cited above, the above deceased's injury caused to the above deceased and the plaintiffs was caused by the death of the above deceased jointly with the remaining Defendants. Thus, it is not recognized that the above accident occurred due to the death of the above construction site and the injury caused by the death of the above defendant company, which was caused by the death of the above construction site, the above accident was caused by the death of the above construction site, and the above accident was caused by the death of the deceased and the injury caused by the death of the above construction site, and it is not recognized that the above accident caused the death of the deceased, which was caused by the death of the above 3rde Hospital, was caused by the death of the above 1987.

However, according to the above recognition, between the above deceased's accident at the construction site (hereinafter "the first accident") and the above medical accident (hereinafter "the second accident"), there is a condition that the second accident would not have occurred if the second accident had not occurred. Therefore, the defendant company liable for the first accident is obligated to compensate the total amount of damages calculated on the basis of the first accident, i.e., the second accident, without considering the death of the second accident.

(2) Actual income.

The above evidence Nos. 1 (No. 5), 2 (No. 5), 5-1, and 5-2 (construction Price Mark and Contents), 6-1, and 2 (excluding the portion not trusted in the above), and the testimony of Non-Party 2 (excluding the part not trusted in the above) and the written argument as a result of the appraisal of the day-to-day medical examination as of December 10, 1939, the above deceased Non-Party 3 was a healthy male with a view to 47 years of age and 7 years of age, and the average remaining life of the male of this age is 2.33 years of age, and the above average remaining life of the deceased cannot be seen as 2.33 years of age, and the above deceased was engaged in the construction of new construction of the building at the time of the accident at the time of the above time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the death at the time of the death at the time of the above time, and the above physical evidence No. 1, 25 days of the deceased's death at the above.

According to the above facts, unless there are special circumstances, the deceased would have been able to obtain monthly income of 306,250 won (12,250 won x 25 days) until the end of the age of 55, which was operated without the above accident. Due to the above accident, 55 years from the time of the accident, the deceased would have suffered monthly loss from the loss that would prevent the plaintiff from obtaining the full amount of the above monthly income during 100 months from the time of the above accident. Thus, the plaintiffs are seeking to pay the whole amount of the above damage at once at the time of the accident. Thus, in accordance with the Homan Accounting Act that deducts the interim interest of 5/12% per month, it would be 25,55,51 won (306,250 won x 83.467, and 250 won) which would be less than the above plaintiffs' profit, or the plaintiffs' profit would be 15,259,595 won,50 won,5000 won.

(3) Negligence offset, etc.

Therefore, the above deceased's property damage caused by the accident of this case is KRW 15,529,539 of the above recognition, and since the above deceased was negligent as well as the above deceased, it is reasonable to determine the amount of compensation to the above deceased by reducing it to KRW 9,317,723 ( KRW 15,529,539 x 60/100).

(4) Consolation money

In light of the empirical rule that the above deceased's bodily harm as well as the above deceased's personal injury suffered considerable mental harm, the defendant company is obligated to give a monetary injury. The defendant company is obligated to give a monetary injury. Considering all the circumstances shown in the arguments of this case, such as the background and result of the accident of this case, degree of negligence of both parties, the deceased and the plaintiffs' age, family relations, property, and education level, it is reasonable to determine the above deceased's amount of consolation money to KRW 1,50,000, KRW 1,000,000, and KRW 500,000 for each of the remaining plaintiffs.

(5) Inheritance relations

According to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the above deceased was the head of Australia, and it is recognized that the plaintiffs were the co-inheritors of the above deceased, and 10,817,723 won in total of 9,317,723 won in property damage and 1,500,000 won in consolation money and 10,817,723 won in total of 10,723 won in accordance with their respective statutory shares of inheritance, and the plaintiff 1,028,323 won (10,817,823 won x 3/16), respectively, the remaining plaintiffs acquired 1,352,215 won (10,817,723 won x 2/16) in proportion to their respective statutory shares of inheritance.

C. Thus, the defendant company's claim against the plaintiff 1 for 3,028,323 won (2,028,323 won +1,000,000 won) and 2,528,323 won (2,028,323 won +50,000 won) and the remaining plaintiffs for 1,852,215 won (1,352,215 +50,000 won) and each of them is filed by the plaintiffs. From April 7, 1988 to June 16, 1989, the delivery date of the complaint of this case is 5% per annum under the Civil Act, and from the next day to the date of completion of the complaint of this case, 25% per annum under the Special Act on the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (the damages for delay by the defendant company of this case until the date of the imposition of the complaint of this case are 30% per annum as to the existence and scope of the obligation of this case).

2. Determination as to claims against Defendant 2 and Defendant 3

(a) Occurrence of liability for damages;

각 성립에 다툼이 없는 갑 제1호증(제적등본), 갑 제2호증(호적등본), 갑 제3호증의 1(진단서),2(사망진단서), 을 제1호증(결정서) 공성부분의 성립에 다툼이 없고 변론의 전취지에 의하여 사문서 부분의 진정성립이 인정되는 갑 제8호증(진술서), 증인 소외 1의 증언에 의하여 진정성립이 인정되는 갑 제4호증(진술서), 변론의 전취지에 의하여 진정성립이 인정되는 갑 제7호증(소견서)의 각 기재(다만 갑 제3호증의 2의 기재 중 뒤에서 믿지 아니하는 부분 제외)와 위 증인 및 증인 소외 2의 각 증언(다만 증인 소외 2의 증언 중 뒤에서 믿지 아니하는 부분 제외) 및 당원의 서울대학교부속병원장에 대한 진료일지감정촉탁결과(뒤에서 믿지 아니하는 부분 제외)에 변론의 전취지를 종합하면, 망 소외 3이 앞에서 본 바와 같이 1987.7,14. 피고회사가 시공하는 공장건물신축공사장에서 발판대에서 거꾸로 떨어지는 사고를 당하여 경부좌상, 제4,5번 경추탈골 및 골절, 척수손상 등의 상해를 입고 산재환자로서 피고 2가 원장으로 있는 인천세광병원에 입원하여 담당의사인 소외 2에 의해 치료를 받게 된 사실, 입원당시 위 망인의 상태는 경부 이하에서 (1) 운동마비는 좌측상 하지에서 약간의 굴전 및 신전이 가능할 정도, (2) 감각마비는 우측 제5경추 신경근대 이하에서 동통을 느끼지 못할 정도로서, 척수가 완전 절단된 완전마비상태는 아니고 경추부척수가 일부 눌렸거나 일부 손상을 입은 부분마비에 해당한 사실, 위와 같은 부분마비환자의 경우 그 회복 여부는 다친지 1주일까지가 고비로서 그 1주일내에 손상된 척수부위의 부종이나 주위조직의 출혈이 발생하면 완전마비로 이행하며, 그렇지 않고 1주일을 잘 넘기면 더 이상 증세가 악화되지는 않을 것으로 기대되는 바, 위 망인의 경우는 다친지 1주일이 지나면서 마비증세가 더 이상 악화되지 않고 오히려 다소 회복되었으며 더구나 위 증세로 사망할 가능성은 거의 없을 것으로 기대되었던 사실, 그리하여 위 소외 2는 위 망인에 대하여는 수술의 필요가 없다고 판단하여 물리적인 고정요법으로 계속 치료할 계획을 세우고 피고회사의 산재담당자에게 고정재료의 하나인 할로베스트를 구입해 오도록 당부하기도 한 사실, 그런데 같은 해 8.31. 위 소외 2가 개인의원 개업을 위해 위 병원을 떠나고 피고 3이 피고 2에 의해 고용되어 위 소외 2의 후임으로 위 망인의 치료를 담당하게 되었는데 피고 3은 위 망인의 용태에서 별다른 이상이 나타나지 않았음에도 불구하고 후임으로 온지 얼마 되지 않아서부터 위 망인에 대한수술을 계획하고 위 망인의 처인 원고 1에게 수술에 동의해 줄 것을 강력히 권유한 사실, 위 원고가 위 피고의 권유에 선뜻 응하지 않자 위 피고는 위 원고에게 "이 수술은 환자의 다리뼈 일부를 잘라내어 탈구된 목뼈 부분에 맞춰 끼우는 아주 간단한 것으로서 생명에는 위험이 없음을 보장하겠다. 수술비에 대하여도 산재처리될 수 있도록 협조해 줄테니 걱정하지 마라."고 하면서 거듭 권유하여 결국 위 원고도 20여일만에 이에 굴복하고 수술동의서에 서명함으로써 위 망인에 대한 경부척추전방융합술 및 골이식술 시행이 결정된 사실, 위 피고는 수술전에 1차로 위 망인에 대하여 일반혈액검사, 심전도, 요검사, 간기능검사, 흉부방사선 촬영, 출혈성향검사 및 혈액형검사 등 기본적인 검사를 실시하고는 당뇨병의 의심을 갖고 다시 2차검사로서 당부하검사 및 소변균 배양검사를 실시하여 당뇨병 및 용도감염을 발견하고 그에 대한 치료를 마친 후 수술에 들어간 사실, 그런데 위 망인은 위 수술전부터 만성적인 간질환을 가지고 있어 위 소외 2가 치료를 맡고있던 1987.7.14. 시행한 간기능검사상 일부 검사의 수치가 비정상적으로 나온 바 있고 이것이 진료일지에 기록되어 있었는 바, 간기능에 이상이 있는 환자에게 수술을 위한 전신마취를 할 경우 간기능이 급격히 악화되어 급성전격성 간염을 일으키고 이것이 원인이 되어 사망할 우려가 있다고 인정되므로 위 피고로서 수술전에 위 망인에 대한 진료일지를 면밀히 검토하고 위와 같은 검사결과가 발견되면 이에 대해 내과전문의의 자문을 구하여 통상적인 검사외에 보다 정밀한 간기능검사(PT, PTT검사 등)을 하였어야 할 것임에도 위 망인의 간기능 이상에는 별다른 관심을 두지 않고 통상적인 간기능 검사만을 실시한 후 그것이 정상범주내에 든다하여 위와 같이 당뇨병만을 치료하고 바로 수술에 들어간 사실, 그리하여 위 피고가 1987.9.17. 오후경 위 망인에 대한 1차 수술을 한 후로 몇시간 가량은 상태가 호전되는 듯 하였으나 다시 위 피고가 다음날 2차 수술을 실시한 직후부터 위 망인은 그 수술부위에 계속 피가 흘러 지혈이 되지 아니하고 복부팽만, 황달, 혈변 등의 간염증세를 보

In the meantime, the deceased was treated as a patient, a blood transfusion, a franchise, etc. by seeking advice from the above defendant on the part of the deceased, who was unable to recover. However, the deceased was treated as a patient on January 1, 199 in accordance with the opinion of the side of the above three-dimensional hospital that "the deceased requires more active and specialized treatment due to the aggravation of spatching and spatching spatitis". However, the above deceased could not be found to have been recovered and the above deceased died at the above three-dimensional hospital on May 11 of the same month due to spatch spatch infection, and it could be recognized that the above deceased died at the above three-dimensional hospital on around 03:52 of the same month due to spatching spatch infection, and the part of the evidence evidence No. 3-2, the witness of the non-party 2, and the result of the appraisal of the above testimony.

According to the above facts, Defendant 3 should carefully examine whether the above deceased was performed by his/her full-time officer before the operation, and if the above deceased 3 had a more detailed duty of care to ask for advice from a medical specialist about his/her function even if he/she was performed, so he/she neglected this duty of care to thoroughly verify whether there was normal function between the deceased, thereby causing death caused by weakening disease. In addition, the above deceased and the above plaintiff 1 in advance before performing the operation, explain in detail various risks associated with the above veterinary surgery to the above deceased before performing the operation, and explain in detail that they agreed to the above veterinary treatment even if it was at the risk of such danger from the above deceased, and instead, he/she did not do so, even if he/she did so, he/she did not ask the above deceased 1 for the safety of the operation and received the above consent, and thus, he/she could have been subject to the above duty of explanation without giving consent from the above defendant 2's employees, and thus, he/she did not have any specific duty of explanation at the time of the above operation.

The plaintiffs asserted that the above Defendants were jointly and severally liable with the defendant company for damages caused by the above bodily injury and death of the above deceased. However, as stated in the part of judgment as to the claim against the defendant company, there is no proximate causal relation between the first accident at the construction site and the second accident at the construction site, and the death of the above deceased, and there is no joint tort with the defendant company. Further, the above Defendants' liability for the second accident should be recognized separately from the liability for the first accident of the defendant company. Accordingly, the above Defendants are liable for damages caused by the death of the above deceased.

(b) Scope of damages;

(1) Actual income

The plaintiffs argued that the above plaintiffs should compensate the above defendants for the actual income loss of the current party at the time of the accident under the Hodman Identification Calculation Act, among the revenues that the above deceased might have been able to be able to be engaged in as early art until the year when her was in operation. However, according to each of the above evidence, the above deceased had already lost 100 percent of her ability to work at the time when she suffered from the injury, such as the 1st accident at the construction site, 100 percent of her ability, she had already lost her ability to work, and it was difficult to recover from the ordinary treatment. Accordingly, it cannot be viewed that the above deceased in such a state caused the actual income loss due to the above medical accident. Therefore, the above plaintiffs' assertion is groundless.

(2) Consolation money

다만, 위 망인이 위에서 인정한 바와 같은 의료사고로 말미암아 사망함으로써 위 망인자신은 물론 그와 가족관계에 있는 원고들이 상당한 정신적 고통을 받았을 것임은 경험칙상 녁넉히 인정할 수 있으므로, 위 피고들은 이를 금전으로나마 위자할 의무가 있다 할 것인데 이 사건 의료사고의 경위와 그 결과, 쌍방의 과실정도, 위 망인 및 원고들의 나이, 가족관계, 재산 및 교육정도 등 이 사건 변론에 나타난 모든 사정을 참작하면 그 위자료액은 위 망인에게 금 1,500,000원, 원고 1에게 금 1,000,000원, 나머지 원고들에게 각 금 500,000원씩으로 정함이 상당하다.

(3) Inheritance relationship

According to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the above deceased was the head of family, and the plaintiffs were the co-property successors of the above deceased. Thus, 1,500,000 won of consolation money of the above deceased recognized as above was transferred jointly by 7 plaintiffs 1 and 281,250 won (1,50,000 won x 3/16), respectively, and the remaining plaintiffs acquired 187,50 won (1,50,000 won x 2/16) respectively by succession according to their respective statutory shares in inheritance.

C. Thus, the above defendants sought against each plaintiff 1 about 1,281,250 won (1,00,000 won + 281,250 won) and 78l,250 won (50,000 won + 281,250 won) against the plaintiff 2, and 687,500 won (50,000 won + 187,500 won) against the remaining plaintiffs, and each of them is sought by the plaintiffs. Since the above defendants' obligation to pay damages for delay from April 7, 1988 to June 16, 1989, the delivery day of the complaint of this case, to 5% per annum under the Civil Act, and from the next day to June 16, 1989, to 25% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion of Legal Proceedings, etc. (the above defendants' obligation to pay damages for delay until the sentencing day of this case should not be recognized as to the existence and scope of the obligation).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, each of the plaintiffs' claims against the defendants is justified within the scope of each of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed, without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the application of Articles 89, 92, and 93 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 6 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, Article 199 of the Civil Procedure Act, with respect to the declaration of provisional execution.

Judges Shin Hyun-chul (Presiding Judge)