[1] Criteria for determining whether a medical person is negligent in medical malpractice

[2] The case holding that it is difficult to recognize the general negligence of a traffic accident emergency room where a traffic accident emergency patient was on duty at night when he died of a tension with a tension

[1] The medical practitioner’s negligence in a medical accident must be discussed on the basis of the degree of care that anyone can normally take into account if the person is engaged in such business and duties. Accordingly, the general level of medical science at the time of the accident, the environment and conditions of medical treatment, and the special characteristics of medical practice should be considered.

[2] The case holding that it is difficult to recognize the negligence of the general public who is on duty of night response room with respect to the death of traffic accident emergency patients with a tension with a tension

[1] Article 750 of the Civil Act / [2] Article 750 of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 93Da59304 delivered on April 26, 1994 (Gong1994Sang, 1468) Supreme Court Decision 96Da5933 delivered on February 11, 1997 (Gong1997Sang, 730 delivered on November 14, 1997)

Plaintiff 1 and four others (Law Firm Jeong, Attorneys Kim Jong-he, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Attorney Choi Chang-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 97Na46711 delivered on March 31, 1998

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in comparison with records, the judgment of the court below is just and there is no violation of the rules of evidence against the rules of evidence as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal. The arguments are without merit.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

A. Factual relations

According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the reasoning of the first instance judgment cited by the lower judgment, and the records, the following facts can be acknowledged.

(1) On August 22, 1994, at around 01:00, the Nonparty: (a) went to the emergency room of the hospital operated by the Defendant, while driving Yabab on the road located in the Gwanak-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, thereby causing bodily injury, such as scarf, scarf, and scarf, by collision with the street on the right side of the road; (b) the police officer who arrived at the site upon receiving the report on the accident immediately after the occurrence of the

(2) On the same day, the co-defendants of the first instance court, who had been employed as a doctor at night at the hospital of the person in question as a general course of internship, was found to have been suffering due to the fact that the Non-party, who had arrived at the emergency room at around 01:40 on the same day, was using a literature, Cheongjin, a survey of the state of Dong and Dong, and a measurement of blood pressure and beer, was conducted by the Non-party, without any special external wounds, but the Non-party voluntarily breads the face, but the non-party was in a state of food and clothing, and was in a state of food and clothing, and was suffering due to the fact that the result of the measurement, such as Cheongjin, East state, blood pressure, beer, etc., was found to have been normal, and thus, the Non-party’s above symptoms was merely due to the chest or alley, and ordered the nurse to take a photograph of the head of Sinver, scar, and X.

(3) At around 02:05 on the same day, the co-defendants of the first instance trial failed to supply the amount to the Non-Party while treating other patients suffering from the heart in the heart of the chrone, and reported that the blood pressure was somewhat lowered and the beebling was somewhat rapid as a result of the blood pressure and beebling measurement, but in consideration of temporary symptoms due to the patient’s interest situation, the co-defendant performed an operation for other patients without directly examining the status of the Non-Party.

(4) At around 02:50 on the same day, the co-defendant of the first instance court received a report from the nurse that the Nonparty appeared to have difficulty in pulmonary treatment while treating another patient who was born with a breathic and other patients, and continued to provide the nurse with an instruction to supply the oxygen and the amount of medicine, and the Nonparty’s body continues to be supported by the nurse, and the radiation company was not only failed in X-ray shooting but also failed to supply the oxygen and the amount of medicine, and the Nonparty continued to receive treatment for the breathic patient who was receiving a report that the radiation company failed to provide the breathic and the amount of medicine, and ordered the Nonparty to take the breathic with the first chest.

(5) At around 03:10 on the same day, the co-defendants of the first instance court discovered that X-ray photographs of the Nonparty were generated on the left-hand side by checking the Nonparty’s X-ray at the X-ray shooting room of the above hospital. As the Nonparty began to have chromosomes upon the Nonparty’s appeal of respiratory distress, the Plaintiff immediately carried out the chromosomes, and supplied the Nonparty’s blood pressure by mixing it with the 5% per blood pressure to maintain blood pressure of the Nonparty who rapidly lowers his blood pressure.

(6) The tension with a tension is under the condition of the constant flow of air into the chest mouth at the time of smoking and the pressure of air is formed within the chest mouths because it was not emitted at the time of scarcitys, and thus, pulmonary measures against the first emergency situation that prevents pulmonation by impeding the beering and impeding the heart entering the heart, and thereby reduce the heart scarbing volume, and the emergency measures against this situation are to be taken in accordance with the upper part of 18Gs and 2-3 of the scarf at the upper part of the upper part of the scarf, and to reduce the scarf by discharging the air in the scarf, and further, the scarf is to be taken in accordance with the upper part of the upper part of the scarf at the time of smoking. The co-defendants of the first instance court did not have experience in implementing the above scarf, etc., so the non-party was killed at around 30:50 on the day of the death of the non-party.

B. The judgment of the court below

The court below determined as follows: (a) the co-defendants of the court of first instance, based on the above facts; (b) the non-party’s first co-defendants of the court of first instance failed to secure the device, which is the first basic treatment to be taken first against the emergency patient who has difficulty pulmon; (c) the non-party’s failure to secure a X-ray shooting; and (d) the non-party’s failure to take a X-ray shooting at the time of receiving a report on the non-party’s failure to take a X-ray shooting; (c) the non-party delayed to take a X-ray shooting test after 1 hour and 30 minutes from the arrival of the emergency room of the above hospital; (d) the non-party appeared to have difficulty in respiratory; (e) the non-party’s failure to take a correct diagnosis with a considerable time of time; and (e) the non-party’s failure to take a medical examination for other patients; and (d) the non-party’s failure to take the examination of the non-party’s death without any negligence’s negligence.

C. The judgment of this Court

However, it is difficult to accept the judgment of the court below for the following reasons.

In a medical accident, the medical practitioner’s negligence must be discussed on the basis of the degree of care that anyone can normally perform if he/she is engaged in such duties and duties. Accordingly, the general level of medical science at the time of the accident, the environment and conditions of medical treatment, the specificity of medical practice, etc. should be taken into account (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Da2926, Nov. 14, 1997; 96Da5933, Feb. 11, 1997; 93Da59304, Apr. 26, 1994). According to the above recognized facts, the co-defendant of the first instance court is a general medical doctor, not a medical specialist, and thus, the general medical doctor, not a medical specialist, should be considered in determining the existence of negligence.

From this point of view, we examine the fact that the judgment of the court of first instance is the negligence of the co-defendant.

The first point is that the non-party was voluntarily pulmonary at the time when the defendant's hospital was transferred to the hospital, and thus there is a need to secure the airway due to disability in the Do, and the non-party's private person is not related to the measures of securing the tension because the non-party's private person is a tension with a tension so it is not the negligence that the co-defendant of the first instance court did not immediately take measures of securing the non-party.

Second, the first instance court's co-defendants and nurses in the first instance court's judgment did not make it easy for the Nonparty to immediately request the Nonparty to take photographs on their own because the first instance court's co-defendants and nurses treatment other emergency patients. The first instance court's motion to take photographs of the Non-Party was not easy, and it seems that the Non-Party's body was lost and moved to a treatment room for the Non-Party to take the body of the Non-Party, and the first instance court's order to take photographs from the date of the first instance court's interview to the date of the first instance court's interview, and the first instance court's co-defendants and nurses did not have to take any time until the date of the first instance court's interview with the Non-Party's body, and it seems that the first instance court's co-defendants and the first instance court's co-defendants did not have any other time until the date of the first instance court's arrival of the X, and it was difficult for the Non-Party to take the body's body's body.

Third, in light of the fourth point, it cannot be deemed that the non-party should immediately be transferred to another hospital on the ground that the non-party had difficulty in pulmonary treatment, and that the non-party failed to perform a chest and oxygen supply, and the co-defendant of the first instance court cannot be deemed as the negligence of failing to immediately transfer the non-party to another hospital while treating other emergency patients continuously without knowing that the non-party was in an acute state of a tension with a tension with a tension with the non-party. Meanwhile, before viewing the chest X photograph of the first instance court, whether the co-defendant of the first instance court was negligent in promptly diagnosing the tension with the non-party's tension with a tension with a tension with a tension with a tension with a view to the non-party who was at the first instance court without immediately administering a chest with a tension with a tension with a tension with a tension with a view to the general knowledge required by the general public, which is a matter of determining whether there was negligence accompanied by a chest with a chest with a chron.

Nevertheless, the lower court determined that the Defendant co-defendant of the first instance court was at fault as stated in its holding, without failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, on the level of specialized medical knowledge required for the diagnosis of scarcitys through the patient’s symptoms and scarcity, the level of specialized medical knowledge required for scarleting, and the degree of risk accompanying the scarleting, and thus, it cannot be deemed that there was an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, and by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations. The argument points out this are with merit.

3. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Seo Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)