206 Gaz. 2993 (Definition)

(************************))

(************************))

Plaintiffs’ Address

Plaintiffs (Law Firm Aju, Counsel for the plaintiffs)

Attorney Kang Jeong-hee

National Pension Management Corporation

Seoul Songpa-dong 7 - 16

Type 6 National Pension Service of Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 3 Young Building 6th floor area in the service place

Jung-gu branch office

Representative Kim Ho-ho

Legal representative;

(************************))

Defendant’s address.

Attorney Yu Jong-sung et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

June 26, 2008

July 17, 2008

1. All of the claims of the plaintiffs and the plaintiff's successor are dismissed.

2. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part pertaining to the intervention by succession is assessed against the Plaintiff’s Intervenor, and the remainder is assessed against the Plaintiffs.

Defendant: 474, 800, 981, 10,000, 000 won from April 22, 2005 to Plaintiff A and 2

Until the pronouncement date of this Judgment, 5% per annum and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

The amount calculated as follows: 4, 724, 890 won to the Intervenor succeeding to the lawsuit of this case; and

Payment of 20% interest per annum from the day after the delivery of a copy of the application to the day of full payment.

(n)

1. Basic facts

A. From March 5, 2002, Plaintiff A1 received outpatient treatment at A Hospital for the purpose of therapy and blood pressure treatment. From January 5, 2004 to January 5, 2004, Plaintiff A1 added 500 g of 1 meter per day and 250 g of Dibex (meformin) to Dibex (meformin) from February 5, 2004 to 3 times per day from April 9, 2004, Eibex (meform) from Eibex (meform) to 100 grax and Eave (Eap in nacle) from 100 to 104.3 m200 mara.

B. On January 1, 2005, Plaintiff A1 recommended the Defendant, an oriental medical doctor, who became aware of in the golf driving range, to draw up herb drugs, to draw up, and used the drugs as prescribed by the Defendant from January 18, 2005 to March 1, 2005 (hereinafter “the instant herb drugs”). The Plaintiff A et al. used the drugs in two installments per day as follows.

주 ) 1돈 : 3. 75g, 5푼 : 1. 875g, 1제 : 120cc / 팩, 31 - 32팩다. 원고 甲1은 2005. 3. 말경부터 소변이 노랗고, 몸 상태가 좋지 않다가, 2005. 4 .

10. The face and eye show a yellow salphy, and was hospitalized on the day after the examination by A Hospital.

D. On April 19, 2005, the plaintiff A 1 was diagnosed as a former executive member accompanied by brain ties from the medical personnel of A Hospital, and transferred to a middle-patient. On April 20, 2005, the plaintiff A 1 was transferred to a B hospital for transplant surgery.

E. On April 22, 2005, Plaintiff A1 received transplant surgery at B Hospital on May 24, 2005, and discharged on May 24, 2005. On July 9, 2005, Plaintiff A re-hospitalized B hospital with a certificate of refusal to transplant and a certificate of merger, and on July 13, 2005.

The discharge has been receiving medical treatment until now.

F. The Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor paid KRW 4,724,890 as a disability pension from September 30, 2007 to May 30, 2008 to Plaintiff A1.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence 6, Gap evidence 11-1-7, Gap evidence 1-1-10, Gap evidence 1-10, Gap's fact-finding results about Gap's hospital head of this court on April 22, 2007, and the purport of the whole oral argument

2. The senior executive officer of medical knowledge is a fluorial fluorial fluorial fluor. Medically, brain fluoral fluoral fluoral fluorala is a single symptoms and phenomenon appearing at this time. The causes of viluor fluoral fluoral fluoral viluoral viluoral viluoral viluoral viluoral viluoral viluoral viluoral viluoral viluoral viluoral viral viral viral viral viral viral viral viral viral viral viral viral viral viral viral viral viral viral viral viral viral viral viral viral vir.

[Reasons for Recognition] The result of this Court's commission of physical examination to C Hospital Head, the purport of the entire argument

3. Determination

A. Determination on the claim for damages caused by negligence in medical practice

The Plaintiffs and the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff (hereinafter the Plaintiff et al.) included heavy metals, such as mercury water, in the instant herb, or (2) the Defendant neglected to conduct basic medical examinations, such as prescribing cather, and neglecting the purchase and management of medicinal herbs, and entered other medicinal herbs not prescribed in the instant herb because of the instant herb drug prepared due to these mistakes, and thus, the Plaintiff A et al. suffered all damages incurred by the Plaintiff et al.

I asserts that this case is.

First of all, as to whether the instant herb contains heavy metals such as mercury, etc., it is hard to believe in light of the appraisal result of the appraiser's lecture that the Plaintiff, etc. submitted by Plaintiff A1 among the instant herb drugs, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently. Thus, this part of the claim by the Plaintiff, etc. is without merit.

Next, according to the following purport: (a) the statement of No. 6 on whether the instant herb drug entered another drug than the Defendant’s prescription; (b) the statement of the evidence No. 6 on October 22, 2007 to the Korean Medical Association of Korea; and (c) the fact-finding results and arguments of the fact-finding conducted on November 8, 2007 by the Defendant’s medical records of the Plaintiff A as to the Plaintiff A, the name of the medicine prescribed on January 18, 2005, as to the Defendant’s medical records of the instant herb, stated that the name of the medicine, which was recorded on January 18, 2005, can be recognized as having a different composition and adaptation, but under the results of the fact-finding conducted by the Korean Medical Association of Korea on November 8, 2007; and (d) according to the results of the fact-finding conducted by the Defendant’s inquiry, the number of herb prescription members is diverse and the highest volume of drugs used; and (c) the fact that each medical institution separately prescribes.

In light of such circumstances, it is reasonable to see that oriental medicine as prescribed by the Defendant is an oriental medicine, and solely on the basis of the facts acknowledged earlier, it is insufficient to readily conclude that the Defendant prescribed an oriental medicine or entered a drug other than those prescribed in the instant oriental medicine, and that the Plaintiff et al. entered the medicine as prescribed by the instant oriental medicine, and there is no other evidence to support this otherwise. Accordingly, this part of the Plaintiff et al.’s assertion is without merit.

Finally, as to whether Plaintiff A 1’s former executive officer was caused by the instant herb drugs, the statement No. 4-1, No. 2, No. 12, and No. 11-7, as to whether Plaintiff A 1’s former executive officer was caused by the instant herb drugs, the fact-finding on June 4, 2008 to the president of the instant court, based on the fact-finding results and the overall purport of the argument by this court, that: (a) 7 points (not less than 9 points are fixed, and 6-8 points are high; (b) the diagnosis results by the drug was conducted by the Plaintiff 1; (c) all voice of the viral examination results that could cause Plaintiff A 1’s former executive officer; (d) the Plaintiff 1 took a long time to use blood pressure and urine for a period of time; (e) the presumption that Plaintiff A 1 had no former executive officer’s 1, 200, on March 204, 2001.

The facts that Plaintiff A voluntarily visited the hospital on April 10, 2005, with the face of the horse border, the fact that Plaintiff A 1 visited the hospital on the face and eye of the snow, and the fact that there is no heavy metal, such as heavy metals, such as the number of herb drugs in this case, are as seen earlier. The statement of No. 11-4, and the Korean Medical Association of this Court on November 2007.

8. According to the results of the inquiry by the plaintiff A1 and the purport of the entire pleadings, the fact that the plaintiff A et al. used for the heated sugar was not the medicinal material causing liver damage ( even if the defendant's prescription was taken place, it is not the pharmaceutical material causing liver damage generally.). The plaintiff A et al., the plaintiff A et al., al., al., al., al., al., al., al., al., al., al., al., al., al., al., al., al., al., al., al., al., al., al., al., al., al., al., al., al., al., al., al., al., al., al., al., al. al., al. al., al. al.

3. The plaintiff A was hospitalized in the hospital A on April 10, 2005, which was about one month after the date of the defendant's visit to the hospital, and it is difficult to conclude that all other causes except the herb drugs of this case were excluded from the possibility of interference. The facts acknowledged above are merely a presumption opinion based on the fact that other special causes are not discovered and, in general, there is a risk of liver damage. Thus, it is insufficient to find that the plaintiff A et al. suffered a full-time officer of the plaintiff A by the herb of this case. The plaintiff et al.'s assertion on this part is not reasonable, since there is no other evidence to acknowledge it differently.

B. Determination on claims for damages caused by failure to take a electric power resource measure

The plaintiff et al. argues that since the plaintiff et al. was negligent in failing to take measures, such as inducing the treatment of the plaintiff A as the plaintiff et al. on the ground that the plaintiff et al. neglected to observe the conditions of the patient in detail and failed to discover any abnormal situation between the plaintiff A et al., the defendant is responsible for all damages suffered by the plaintiff et al.

살피건대, 이를 인정할 만한 증거가 없고, 오히려 이 법원의 대한한의학회에 대한 감정촉탁결과, 이 법원의 대한한의학회에 대한 2007. 10. 22. 자 사실조회결과, 원고 甲1 본인신문결과, 피고 본인신문결과 및 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면 한의원에서 혈액검사를 하는 것은 법으로 금지되어 있는 사실, 원고 甲1은 이 사건 한약을 복용하는 동안 피고에게 특별한 이상 증상을 호소한 적은 없는 사실, 원고 1에게 이상 증상이 발생한 것은 피고의 한의원을 마지막으로 방문한 뒤인 2005. 3. 말경인 사실, 원고 甲1은 평소 다니던 교회 집사로부터 눈동자가 노랗다는 얘기를 듣고 비로소 A병원 응급실을 방문한 사실을 인정할 수 있는바, 위 인정사실에 의하면 피고가 2005. 3. 14. 당시에 원고 1에게 이상 증상에 대해 아무런 얘기도 듣지 못하였고, 문진이나 진맥 외에 혈액검사를 할 수 없는 한의사로서는 그 당시 원고 甲1에 대하여 즉각적인 양방 내원의 필요성이 있었음을 알았거나 알 수 있었다고 보기 어려우므로, 원고 등의 이 부분 주장도 이유 없다 .

C. Determination on the claim for damages caused by violation of the duty to explain

The plaintiff et al. did not explain that the plaintiff et al. may cause more than the oriental medicine of this case. Thus, the defendant asserts that the defendant is liable for all damages suffered by the plaintiff et al.

The facts that the Defendant did not explain the possibility of liver damage by the instant herbal do not conflict between the parties. Meanwhile, the facts that each of the drug elements of the instant oriental medicine is not the drug material that may cause liver damage, as seen earlier. According to the entries in Eul-B, the Defendant’s newspaper and the entire purport of arguments, the Defendant’s interview with Plaintiff A-1 when taking herb drugs, and there are inconvenience, such as fire-fighting disorder, snow history, clothes, and joints, etc., and the Defendant confirmed the Plaintiff A’s medical treatment and health condition. In full view of the medical knowledge prior to the above recognition facts, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have any duty to explain that there was any negligence on the part of the instant oriental medicine, as well as the general explanation of the oriental medicine medication, and it is difficult to deem that there was any other duty to explain that there was any negligence on the part of the Plaintiff, etc., as well as the duty to explain that there was any negligence on the part of the instant herbal.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the claim of this case by the plaintiff et al. is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

The presiding judge's objection to judge

Judges Lee Jin-hee -

Judge Park Jong-young