logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2011.10.18 2011나28849
손해배상(의)
Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiffs falling under the following order of payment shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. The corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance shall be cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act;

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. 1) The grounds for the medical negligence in the course of the administration of the instant antibiotics of this case. (1) Although Defendant C instructed Defendant C to administer the instant antibiotics of this case to “after childbirth,” the Defendant’s assistant nurse’s nurse did not properly understand it, and the Plaintiff B did not have any risk of infection, and the Plaintiff B’s assistant nurse did not have any risk of infection. However, even if it did not so, it is argued that the Plaintiff B’s administration of the instant antibiotics of this case to Plaintiff B without any negligence constitutes a negligence in itself.

(2) First, as to whether the assistant nurse of the Defendant Council had been negligent in administering the instant antibiotic system before the delivery against the instruction of the Defendant C, the facts that the assistant nurse of the Defendant Council had administered the instant antibiotic system to the Plaintiff B before the delivery do not conflict between the parties, and according to the Gap 6-2 (Medical Instructions), the defendant C ordered the instant antibiotic system to be administered after delivery.

As to this, Defendant C has administered an antibiotic system before delivery in general in order to prevent infections such as the treatment division, etc. In addition, since the contents of the above medical instruction were hospitalized in a state that did not specify only a part at the time of hospitalization and prepared a medical record with the standard form attached thereto, Defendant C alleged that the instant antibiotic system was included in the instructions after delivery. However, even though 1,00 people among 1,00 people were included in the 3-year antibiotic reaction test, there was a result of voice in the 1,00 antibiotic system reaction test, such as that there was an Aalopia in fact.

arrow