beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
[Claim]
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation as to the instant case is as follows: (a) the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment, except where the judgment of the Defendant’s assertion is attached as stated in paragraph (2). Therefore, this is cited by the main sentence of Article 4
2. Determination on the Defendant’s assertion
A. The defendant asserts that it cannot be deemed that he neglected to observe the progress of the plaintiff B and the fetus for the following reasons.
Although L was teared to the solar test record, there was only no solar test record, and there was only no solar test record, and the plaintiff B conducted an examination of the heart of the fetus through the NTS Inspection Act from H 11:20 hospitalized in the hospital of this case to 16:15, the decision of emergency scophing.
Around 15:50 on the same day, if the medical personnel of the instant hospital confirmed the condition of the Plaintiff B and the fetus and observed the progress of around 16:05 on the same day, the medical personnel could prevent the outbreak of spacination.
It is found that there was an effective treatment for it, or that there was no prevention of spawn fever due to the failure to observe the progress.
Unless it is recognized that the condition of the plaintiff B and the fetus was 25 minutes elapsed simply, it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff B and the fetus neglected the duty of observation.
According to the court's fact-finding on the Korean Medical Association, it is recognized that the mother who is attaching NST cannot be deemed to have neglected to observe the delivery at intervals of 15 minutes in the case of a woman in childbed with the NST.
However, this opinion is nothing more than the opinion that medical professionals do not constitute a duty of delivery surveillance if they did not make any separate Cheongjin and record, in addition to confirming the result of the inspection by NST equipment for the NTS attachment mother.
Plaintiff
B, the mother-ro 15:50, 15:50,000,000.