209 Gohap5405 Compensation (Definition)

nan

nan

September 24, 2009

December 24, 2009

1. The defendant is dismissed on April 3, 2006, and 5% per annum from April 3, 2006 to December 24, 2009, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. 2/3 of the costs of lawsuit is assessed against the Plaintiff, and the remainder is assessed against the Defendant, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The defendant's 512, 676, 695 won to the plaintiff and its judgment from April 3, 2006 to the date of this judgment.

5% interest per annum, 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. Status of the parties

The defendant is an intention to establish and operate the defendant hospital, and the plaintiff is a person who has received a sound distribution spawnism from the defendant.

B. The Plaintiff was admitted to the Defendant hospital to undergo a surgery on April 3, 2006 and a consultation on spawnism on the process of implementation of a sound and distributed surgery (1).

(2) The Defendant recommended the Plaintiff to perform a sound distributional egalitic egalitic epolitic epolitic epolitic epolitic epolitic epolitic epolitic epolitic epolitic epolitic epolitic epolitic epolitic epolitic epolit

C. The Plaintiff’s appeal and past progress (1) revealed that the 2nd 0th marith marith 1 and the 1st marith 1st math math math math math math math math math math math math math math math math math math math math math math math 6th math math math math 6th math math math math math 6th math math math math math 6th math math math math 1st math math math math math 1st math math math math math 1st math math math math math math 1st math math math 1st math math ma.).

(d) The relevant medical knowledge (1) related to the sound distribution (1) bucks (Buk's sflascick's buck), which plays the role of transmitting ear earers, skins, urines, and piracy on the surface of the earth with a view to transmitting ears through the emulculation. The emulciosis part-cition method is an operation method that delays the situation by cutting part of the above sound distribution news and lowering the sense of emulciation of ears and earbrus. (2) CRPS (a) Maflasscition rate is located on the upper part of the bar, and there are no substantial reasons for the emulciation and emuliation of the relevant emuliosis, and there are no serious reasons for the emuliation and emuliation in the form of emulciating surgery, and there are no reasons for the emultition or complex emulciation.

(C) A single prosecutor is not capable of diagnosing multiple pains, and the symptoms and signs shown to the patient are examined, and the clinical and other thorough checkups are conducted. In addition, in relation to the treatment methods of the Complex Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Ma,

[Ground of Recognition: In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including each number), Gap evidence No. 19, Eul evidence No. 1 through 3 (including numbers), the result of the court's commission of physical examination to the director of the Seoul Escar Hospital at the Toln University, the result of fact inquiry to the director of the Seoul Escar Hospital at the court, the purport of the whole pleadings as a whole]

2. Whether liability for damages arises;

A. The plaintiff asserted by the parties (1) that the plaintiff had caused disability falling under Type 2 of the Complex Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-

(2) On this point, the Defendant asserts that there was no negligence on the part of the negligence in the medical treatment as follows. (a) The choice of the treatment method for treating the part of the disease in the medical treatment belongs to the scope of doctor’s discretion. As the treatment method implemented in the clinical medical field at the time of the instant surgery, the treatment method was widely implemented, including drug treatment, national anesthesia medication and behavioral therapy. At the time of the surgery, the treatment method was widely implemented, and there was no method for predicting the possibility of the occurrence of the multiple brue symptoms through the combined brue symptoms through the merger certificate, since there was no examination method for predicting the possibility of the outbreak of the combined brue brue brue brue brue brue brue brue brue brue brue brue brue brue brue brue brue brue brue brut in the medical treatment method.

Before the instant surgery, the Defendant explained to the Plaintiff on the delay in cure of creative disorder, brusation, brusation, and recurrence, etc. of the general merger witness due to the instant surgery’s incidental surgery, blood species, infection, etc. The Defendant did not explain the possibility of the occurrence of multiple brusism in the complex brusium and the instant surgery, but it could not be predicted that the complex brusium could have occurred due to the instant surgery, and thus, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have breached its duty to explain.

B. Determination

(1) In order to recognize a doctor's negligence in a medical accident (A) medical doctor's negligence, the doctor's negligence could have predicted the occurrence of the result although it could have predicted the occurrence of the result, and the doctor's negligence could have avoided the occurrence of the result. In this case, the doctor's duty of care, which serves as the basis for determining the result, shall be based on the level of medical practice performed in the clinical medical field, such as medical institutions, at the time of performing the medical act. However, the level of medical care is generally known to the ordinary person engaged in the same work at the time of the medical act, and the level of medical care means the so-called form of medical practice being dead, which is being recognized at the time of the medical environment and conditions, and the unique nature of the medical act, should be identified at a normative level (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da13045, Oct. 28, 2005). In addition, the doctor has no reasonable discretion to select the patient's status, the level of medical care at the time, and the experience.

(B) In light of the above, in determining whether there was a medical negligence on the part of the Defendant in this case, first of all, it is the premise that the Defendant could have predicted that the Plaintiff could have a present disability that is the complex brue brue brue brue in the instant surgery. Each of the evidence Nos. 16 through 18 to the purport that the multiple brue brue brue brue brue brue brue may occur due to the instant surgery, is about the research of the outcome of the instant surgery, or about the situation that occurred after the instant surgery, and it is difficult to recognize the negligence at the time of the instant surgery. In addition, in full view of the evidence Nos. 13 and 14, evidence Nos. 13, 29 (including number), evidence No. 30-2, No. 5, each of the evidence No. 2, and the fact-finding with respect to the Seoul University Hospital Head of this court.

For reasons, academic circles did not recognize it as a treatment method for the plaintiff, and this paper was published in the academic field through 200, rather than crypology evaluation (pe-crypology examination). The facts that may cause long-term pains due to side effects of the crypology operation, which can normally be seen as 3.3% or 2-5% of the crypology, based on researchers, and it is difficult to find that the defendant could not have known crypology infection before the crypology surgery, and that the crypology surgery could have been conducted by the crypology in light of the fact that the crypology was not widely known to the plaintiff when the crypology surgery was conducted, and that the crypology surgery was conducted by the crypology in light of the fact that the crypology 2 was not known to the defendant before the crypology crypology, and thus, it can be presumed that the crypology crypology in the whole part of this case.

(2) Whether the duty to explain is a violation of the duty to explain (A) is a procedural measure essential to a doctor in the process of moving into an indicative medical act. In light of the importance of such duty, a doctor is deemed to have a need for performing his duty to preserve the content explained to the patient at least in light of the necessity of the duty to explain, and Article 9 of the Emergency Medical Service Act and Article 3 and 1 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act [Form] 1 of the Emergency Medical Service Act in the case of emergency medical services which require urgency compared to ordinary medical acts, the legal obligation to explain the necessity of the medical act, the contents of the medical act, the risks of the medical act, etc. and to obtain written consent in the document is imposed on the medical worker. On the other hand, it is very easy for the doctor to prove the performance of the duty to explain by such document, while it is extremely difficult for the doctor to prove that the above duty to explain has not been performed, barring any special circumstances, to interpret that the defendant's duty to explain and explain the side effects of the plaintiff at the time of the surgery can not be explained (see Supreme Court Decision 2075Da571).

3. Scope of liability for damages

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that, because, before the surgery of this case, he did not cause serious harm to health or life, he did not choose the plaintiff to undergo the surgery of this case if the plaintiff had explained about the side effects (such as pathic pathic pathic ethic ethic ethic ethic ethic ethic ethic ethic ethic ethic ethic ethic ethic ethic ethic ethic ethic ethic ethic ethic ethic ethic ethic ethic ethic ethic ethic e

B. Determination

(1) In cases where a doctor violates his/her duty of explanation and causes death, etc. to a patient due to an operation, etc., if he/she only claims consolation money for the loss of opportunity to choose on the part of the patient and the impossibility of exercising his/her right of self-determination, it is not necessary to establish the relationship that would not result in death, etc. if he/she had been explained. However, in cases of claiming all damages as a result, there is a proximate causal relation between the serious result and the doctor's breach of duty of explanation and the mistake in the process of acquiring consent. In such cases, the violation of duty of explanation should be the same degree as that of the doctor's breach of duty of care required in the process of medical invasion on the patient's life, in light of the fact that the doctor's duty of explanation and treatment is to protect the patient's right of self-determination and the opportunity to choose on the patient's life, and thus, it is difficult to find that there is no substantial causal relation between the patient's duty of explanation and the possibility to explain the patient's whole side effects after the surgery.

(3) However, since the defendant violated the plaintiff's right to self-determination or choice as above and thereby caused mental pain to the plaintiff, it is liable to compensate for consolation money. In full view of all the circumstances revealed in the arguments of the case, such as the plaintiff's age, occupation, characteristics of sacrife, and the process of performing the surgery of this case, it is reasonable to determine consolation money of 20 million won as consolation money for the plaintiff.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the consolation money of 20 million won and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from April 3, 2006, which is the date of the judgment of this case that the plaintiff sought from April 3, 2006, to December 24, 2009, and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, which is the date of complete payment. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

The presiding judge's objection to judge

Judges Lee Jae-han

Judges Lee Dong-sik