2016 Ghana 217805 Compensation (Definition)

1. South ○○;

Gangnam-si

2. South ○○;

Gyeonggi-Yecheon Group

3. South ○○.

Gyeonggi-Yecheon Group

1. Does;

2. Round;

3. Lighting-○.

Defendant 1 through 3 Address Seoul Yongsan-gu

4. A school foundation ○○ Private Teaching Institutes.

Chungcheongnam-do, ASEAN-do

Representative President Kim○-○

[Defendant-Appellant] Defendant 1

Attorney Lee Im-soo

June 21, 2017

July 26, 2017

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The Defendants each of the plaintiffs 26, 666, 00 won against South ○○ and South ○○, and 31, 361, 510 won against the plaintiff Nam ○ and South ○○.

From March 16, 2015 to the last service date of a copy of the instant complaint with respect to the Won and each of the above amounts.

5% and 15% interest per annum from the following day to the date of full payment.

On March 9, 2015, at ○○ University Seoul Hospital (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant Hospital”), which is the mother of the Plaintiffs’ mother Kim○, operated by the Defendant Educational Institute ○○○○○○○○○○ Private School (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant Hospital”), to perform the operation of the dynamic cryer on the right side under the general anesthesia, and on March 16, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant cryO of the house”), and on March 16, 2015: 04: (a) a week thereafter, 2, 4 through 8, 16, 17, 19, and 20 evidence (including a branch number; hereinafter the same shall apply). - The fact of death due to the cardiopulmonary suspension is either not disputed between the parties, or may be recognized in full view of the overall purport of pleadings.

First, the plaintiffs asserted that, as a guardian of the deceased, the medical personnel at the defendant hospital consented only to the anesthesia during the operation of the deceased and did not consent to the general anesthesia, the medical personnel at the defendant hospital caused the death of the deceased due to the aftermathoculing operation under the general anesthesia without the consent of the patient or his/her guardian, and eventually, the death of the deceased was caused by this.

In light of the following circumstances, although the Defendants’ assertion that the medical personnel of the Defendant hospital obtained the consent of the deceased in the operating room on the day of the above operation is difficult to believe in light of the deceased’s condition at the time of the operation, and the Plaintiffs’ demand for an autopsy which is not a general anesthesia on the ground of the deceased’s past power (see each week 2), it is difficult to evaluate that the medical personnel of the Defendant hospital conducted a general anesthesia by considering the overall purport of oral argument in the statement No. 4 and No. 5, namely, ① it may inevitably change the method of anesthesia depending on the patient’s condition during preparation or operation, signed and sealed as the guardian of the deceased. ② In light of the foregoing, it is difficult to deem that the medical personnel of the Defendant hospital’s medical personnel changed the method of anesthesia into a general anesthesia by making it impossible for the medical personnel of the Defendant hospital to perform the overall anesthesia on the ground of the deceased’s condition on the day of the operation.

On the other hand, since medical practice is an area requiring highly specialized knowledge and it is extremely difficult for a general person, not an expert, to clarify whether he/she has violated his/her duty of care in the course of medical practice, or whether there exists causation between the violation of his/her duty of care and the occurrence of losses, it is possible to presume that the symptoms occur to a patient during the surgery, by proving indirect facts that it is difficult to see that there are other causes than medical malpractice, and thus, such symptoms are based on medical negligence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da66328, Jul. 7, 2000). However, even in such a case, the burden of proof is not allowed by presumption of the doctor's negligence and the causal relationship between the doctor's negligence and the result of severe negligence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da66328, Jul. 7, 200).

10. 28. 202Da45185, Feb. 28, 2002), and the fact that the recovery room was stable 4 after the recovery room on the day of the operation (see, e.g., evidence No. 5) is a stable 4), etc., it is difficult to readily conclude that the recovery of waste caused by telegraphic anesthesia (other words, it is difficult to find a proximate causal relation between the above general anesthesia and the deceased’s death). Accordingly, the above argument by the Plaintiffs is without merit.

Next, the plaintiffs asserted that the medical personnel of the defendant hospital was negligent in failing to conduct the diagnosis examination to treat the pulmonary collection. However, in full view of the entries in the evidence Nos. 5 and 17 as well as the overall purport of the arguments as a result of the examination of the medical records entrusted to the president of the National Medical Dispute Mediation and Arbitration Agency of this Court, the medical personnel of the defendant hospital held that on March 11, 2015, the medical personnel of the defendant hospital conducted the blood cultivation examination, the reading examination (avian influenza inspection), the ple X-May examination (safy examination), the Mady examination (safy examination), the Mady examination (safy examination), the Mady examination, and the MRI examination on the following day ( March 12, 2015), and that the above pleX-Orath-Oraththy treatment was discovered, it is difficult to find that there was any negligence on the part of the plaintiffs at the time of the above medical practice.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims against the defendants based on the premise that the medical personnel of the defendant hospital was negligent in the death of the deceased are dismissed in all of them.

Judges subordinate to judges

1) Therefore, the Defendant Hospital’s assertion on a different premise ( = on the premise that a serious suspension has occurred due to a high knium transfusion)

The assertion that there was a negligence on the part of the deceased, who was the kidney disease, on the part of the medical team, on the part of the deceased.

The deceased's knife according to the result of the request for the appraisal of medical records by the President of the Korea Medical Dispute Mediation and Arbitration Agency.

It is much more likely that it would be due to the implementation of cardiopulmonary resuscitation, which is high in thorium.

2) The reasons are as follows: (a) 2-3-day anesthesia after general anesthesia at the time when the Deceased was to undergo an operation for a long time seven years prior to the date of the operation; (b) 2-3-day anesthesia.

In the absence of experience, there is no consent to a telegraph transfer.

3) It is difficult to deem that such a measure by the Defendant Hospital deviates from the scope of reasonable discretion.

4) V/Sable

5) After the operation, the Deceased had been suffering from the earth and sand after the operation, and there is a high possibility that the heat and waste may have been caused due to the smoking of part of the earth and sand in the Gutoo.

(As a result of this court's entrustment of appraisal of medical records to the chief of the Korea Medical Dispute Mediation and Arbitration Agency. However, "Guto" evidence No. 4 (Written Consent to anesthesia)

In light of the fact that the deceased is also written as a merger certificate at the time of anesthesia, etc., the selection of the method of anesthesia shall be made by the deceased after the operation.

It seems that it is not superior to whether it is a climatic anesthesia or not.