logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2018.11.15 2016다20831
손해배상(의)
Text

The judgment below

The part against the Defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The plaintiffs.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Judgment on the plaintiffs' grounds of appeal

A. Medical practice is an area requiring highly specialized knowledge, and it is very difficult for a general person, not an expert, to clarify whether he/she has violated the duty of care in the course of medical practice, or whether there exists causation between the violation of such duty of care and the occurrence of losses. Therefore, in cases where symptoms causing severe results occur to a patient after an operation or a surgery, it is also possible to presume that such symptoms are based on medical negligence by proving indirect facts that it is difficult to deem any other reason than medical negligence. However, even in such a case, it is not allowed to prove the causal relationship between the doctor's negligence and the result by presumption of the causal relationship with the doctor's negligence, on the grounds that there is a circumstance that does not guarantee the probability that the occurrence of a result is likely to be presumed due to a doctor's negligence.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da45185 Decided October 28, 2004, and Supreme Court Decision 2005Da5867 Decided May 31, 2007, etc.). Meanwhile, in providing medical treatment, a doctor shall have the reasonable scope of discretion to choose the patient’s conditions, the level of medical care at the time, and the method of medical care deemed appropriate based on his/her own knowledge and experience, and a doctor shall not be deemed to have been negligent in taking any other measures, unless it exceeds a reasonable scope.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da5867 Decided May 31, 2007, etc.). B.

The lower court determined as follows, during the period of hospitalization of the Deceased on February 9, 2011, that the medical personnel at the Defendant hospital did not neglect his/her duty of care necessary for treating the tuberculosis of the Deceased.

(1) Four navigation tuberculosiss of the medical professionals of the Defendant Hospital, and Leptospirosirosiss.

arrow