beta
Text
1. The Defendants jointly share the Plaintiff KRW 5 million with 5% per annum from June 14, 2016 to August 18, 2020.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On June 14, 2016, the Plaintiff: (a) had a prudent blood on the part of Love (No. 38 Mean); and (b) applied to Defendant B’s “D” located in Gwanak-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City.
Defendant C, who is a doctor of the above hospital, has taken the Manoma shooting and CT shooting on the same day and extracted the aforementioned love.
(hereinafter referred to as “instant operation”). B.
From that day, the Plaintiff appealed to the left-hand side of the Haak, etc., and was diagnosed by the E Hospital on September 7, 2017.
【Entrys in Evidence A (including paper numbers) Nos. 2 and 3 (including paper numbers) of the ground for recognition, the purport of the whole pleadings】
2. Determination
A. (1) The establishment of liability for damages (a) medical practice is an area requiring highly specialized knowledge, and it is extremely difficult for a general person, other than an expert, to clarify whether he/she has breached his/her duty of care in the process of medical practice, or whether there exists a causal relationship between a violation of his/her duty of care and a loss incurred therefrom. Therefore, it is also possible to presume that the symptoms were caused by medical malpractice by proving indirect facts that it is difficult to deem that there are any other causes than medical negligence in the event of symptoms causing a serious result to a patient after the surgery or operation. However, even in that case, it is not permissible to prove that the symptoms were caused by medical negligence by proving indirect facts that it is difficult to deem that there is any other causes than the medical negligence. However, even in such a case, it is not permissible to bear the burden of proof against a doctor as a result by presumptioning a doctor's negligence and a causal relationship from a very serious result with a view that is not likely to be presumed
(B) On March 24, 2016, the Plaintiff appealed to the health room, and the reduction or exemption of the time existing after the instant surgery, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Da10113, Mar. 24, 2016).