beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 8,454,639 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 5% from June 21, 2017 to November 5, 2019, and the following.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On June 21, 2017, at the D Hospital operated by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant hospital”), the Plaintiff was performing an operation to recover annual tissue satch (hereinafter “the instant species”) on the left-hand floor part of the hospital operated by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant hospital”).
B. After the instant surgery, the Defendant appealed to the left-hand side of the symptoms with extreme pain and sense of view (hereinafter “the instant legacy”). After receiving a written request for medical treatment from the instant hospital and the Defendant, the Defendant conducted medical treatment in E Hospital, F medical clinic, G hospital, etc.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 8, purport of whole pleadings
2. Establishment of and limitation on liability for damages;
A. Generally, in medical practice, i.e., breach of the duty of care and/or non-performance of a duty of care in order to be held liable for tort or non-performance of a duty of care in the course of medical practice, i.e., medical practice should be premised on the existence of a causal relationship between the violation of the duty of care, the occurrence of damages, and the violation of the duty of care and the occurrence of damages. However, medical practice should be proved by the patient’s side, as an area requiring highly specialized knowledge. However, it is extremely difficult to determine whether there was a violation of the duty of care in the course of medical practice, or a causal relationship between the violation of the duty of care and the occurrence of damages. Thus, if indirect facts are proved 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 except for medical negligence, such symptoms may be presumed as medical negligence (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Da6815, Feb. 12, 2015).