beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 5 million and the Plaintiff’s annual rate from October 8, 2015 to November 30, 2017, respectively.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On November 2, 2012, the Plaintiff received a stem cell sect surgery from the Defendant, a doctor at C Hospital (former Mutual D) hospital, which was performed by the Plaintiff.
(hereinafter “instant surgery”). B.
Due to the druplicity of this case, the occurrence of a large number of 1.5 cms inside and outside both banks due to the duplicity of local duplicity.
(hereinafter referred to as “the instant multi-sex leader”. There was no symptoms as above to the Plaintiff immediately before the operation.
[Evidence of Evidence] The facts without dispute, Gap 1-4, the result of the physical appraisal commission to the E Hospital Head of this Court, the purport of the entire pleadings
2. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff caused the instant diversification of the instant case due to the Defendant’s medical malpractice, and the Plaintiff sought a total of KRW 20,000,000,000,00 for damages as a result of the Defendant’s medical malpractice, including KRW 15,00,00,000.
3. Determination
A. In a case where a medical doctor’s medical practice becomes a tort due to a breach of duty of care in the process, there should be causation between medical malpractice and damage. The burden of proof is borne by the patient. However, medical practice is a field requiring highly specialized knowledge, and it is extremely difficult to find out whether there was a violation of duty of care in the process of medical practice or whether there was a causal link between the breach of duty of care and the loss of duty of care. Thus, if indirect facts are proved to prove that there was any other cause than medical negligence in the course of surgery, if it is difficult to deem that there was any other cause than medical negligence in the course of surgery, other than the occurrence of symptoms, if it is difficult to view that there was any other cause than medical negligence in the course of surgery.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 99Da66328, Jul. 7, 2000; 2010Da57787, May 9, 2012). In particular, immediately after surgery for a patient who had no symptoms at issue.