Plaintiff (Attorney Park Ho-ho et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant School Foundation (Law Firm Gyeong & Yang, Attorneys Min Tae-ho et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

June 3, 2010

Seoul Western District Court Decision 2007Kadan60786 Decided October 8, 2009

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked, and the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 99,990,000 with 5% per annum from August 9, 2007 to the date of a final judgment, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

1. Basic facts

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or are recognized in full view of Gap evidence 5-1 to 4, Gap evidence 6, 7, Gap evidence 8-1 to 3, Gap evidence 9, Eul evidence 11, Eul evidence 2-1 to 41, Eul evidence 4-1, Eul evidence 4-2, Eul evidence 6-1, Eul evidence 6-2, Eul evidence 7 through 10, the result of the first instance court's entrustment of medical records to the chief of the hospital of the local government university of the Republic of Korea, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

A. Status of the parties

The Defendant, as a school juristic person, establishes and operates ○○ University’s attached △△ Hospital (hereinafter “Defendant hospital”) located in Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (number omitted), and received surgery, such as rewing-out, etc. and hospital treatment at the Defendant hospital from July 27, 2007 to August 20, 2007.

(b) Progress of medical treatment before surgery;

(1) The Plaintiff had medical capacity to receive approximately 20 years ago, and around 205, after being treated by another hospital, discovered that he/she was melting in the gate, and was diagnosed on July 2007 that the size of the melting species would reach 1.3 cm as a result of the early wave test conducted around July 2007, and applied the Defendant hospital’s general surgery on the 27th day of the same month.

(2) From the same day, the Defendant hospital confirmed that there was no peculiar opinion on the operational treatment by conducting a chest X-ray, heart, blood test, and ultra-wave test against the Plaintiff, and recommended the Plaintiff to conduct a gate-saving surgery by the ductal diameter. Accordingly, on August 8, 2007, the Plaintiff was hospitalized in the Defendant hospital with the view to undergoing the above operation.

(c) Conducting an operation, changing the procedure, etc.;

(1) On August 9, 2007, the Defendant hospital conducted general anesthesia and general sprinking measures against the Plaintiff, and thereafter, the Defendant hospital started wing out by ducing carbon dioxide by inserting 10 meters, respectively, into the lower part of the 17:50 m (the Nonparty in the judgment of the Supreme Court), the lower part of Nonparty 1 (the Nonparty in the judgment), who is an external medical specialist, and inserting 10m projected down to the right gate, and inserting carbon dioxide into the lower part of the upper part of the body, and inserting 5m projected down to the lower part of the gate, which is an operation assistant (the Nonparty in the judgment of the Supreme Court); and immediately thereafter, the Defendant hospital started ducing by inserting carbon dioxide.

(2) Accordingly, Nonparty 1, a second year’s major, performed an operation to stuff a milked organ with Nonparty 2’s subsidy. Around 18:30, more than 40 minutes have passed since the operation commenced, the Plaintiff, etc., and Nonparty 1, etc., were unable to confirm the cause and condition of the blood transfusion, and the said Nonparty 1, etc., immediately converted into her part.

(3) The above non-party 1, etc. found to have teared to the upper right kidne, and discovered that there was a severe blood relative near the kidne, and attempted to do so, but did not cause blood transfusion, but did not cause blood transfusion, and followed the operation at around 21:10 by performing the wing-out surgery.

(d) Progression, etc. after an operation;

The Plaintiff’s wing type was found to be a mere chronic pyrosis as a result of the organizational examination conducted after the above operation. At present, the Plaintiff’s function of expanding the left-hand edge was reduced by approximately 20-30% in the status of the extension of right-hand edge.

(e) Relevant medical knowledge;

(1) Bring paper

(A) The Gallbladder shall be in charge of the function of temporarily storing and concentration the sapap in a place below the left part of the human body, the fire extinguishing organ located in the upper part of the human body, and breaking it to the warden at the necessary time.

(B) Fallbladler polyp refers to all forms of ballbladler gym, excluding tin, in large amounts to non-packer species and paper balling species, including species for training, such as species adea, etc., and species cancer again. The ratio of malicious species out of the balke type to approximately 3 through 8%, unlike fire extinguishing agencies, is not easy to conduct crymological diagnosis by the organizational cocolon before the internal observation or operation, and in general, non-packer species are identified to have more than 1 cymorm stalm stalm stalm stalm stalm stalm stalm stalm stalm stalm stalm stalm stalm stalm stalm stalm stalms.

(2) Bascopic chrocyy by ductoscopic cholecyy

(A) In the past, the reciting reciting was mainly made by cutting back the parts of the reciting and directly saving the body, but from around 1990, it was recognized that the reciting reciting by reciting the ductal ductal ductal ductal ducts and inserting carbon dioxide, etc. into the ductal ductal ductal ducts (laparcope) by inserting the inner images of the ductal ductal ducts and inserting the ductal ductal ducts into the ductal ductal ducts. Since clinical medicine began to be subject to general application of all long-term surgery, the ductal ductal ducs by reciting the ductal ductal duc is recognized as the standard duct of the ductal duc.

(B) The donation of the regradation by the regradation of the regrative surgery is when there is a regradation disease to the patient, serious chronic pulmonary disease, terminal disease, chronic pulmonary disease, sulphal heart, sulphal heart. The advantages of the regrative surgery, such as the short period of hospitalization, rapid recovery, beauty effects, low costs, and complication, etc., after the operation, and the development of the surgery and the operation body, if it is possible to dulcation in all cases, the clinical medicine attempted the regradation surgery first in all cases, and takes into account the transition of the regradic surgery when there is a problem in the course of the operation, and thus, it becomes a relative response of the regradation surgery in accordance with the ability of the regrative surgery when it is possible to cope with the regradation of the regrative surgery.

(C) When it is impossible to implement softing alcohol due to severe salt and oiling around the reciting during the ductal process, or it is difficult to distinguish accurate scopic location, or when there is a combination of blood transfusion, scopic damage, and scopic leakage during the ductal process, the ductal shall immediately be converted into ductal. As above, the ratio of converting ductal ductal ductal ductals from ductal ductal ducts to ductal ductal ducts is about 5-10%.

(D) The major combinations of ductal ductal ductal ductal ductal ductal ductal ductal ductal ductal ductal ductal ductal ductal ductal ductal ductal ductal ductal ductal ductal ductal ductal ductal ductal ductal ductal ductal ductal ductal ductal ductal duct.

(3) Location and long-term care of gates and kidneyeries

(A) In the body part, the bdominccca and the bdomination are located in the body part. The bdomination is located in the body part along with the corrosion, the bdomination, the bdomination, the register, the inter-section, the bdomination, the bdomination, and the bdomination, the bdomination, and the bdomination. Since the bdomination is located in the body part and the bdomination together with the bdomination, the bdomination is located in the body part and the bdomination, and the bdomination is located in a considerable distance from the location.

(B) However, a patient with medical capacity to undergo a diversative surgery has high possibility of the outbreak of organs and tissues within a diversative surgery, and if the diversative distinction is severe, it would be difficult to separate the organs because it has no meaning of the above diversological distinction. There is no method of examination which can confirm the degree of the diversity of organs and tissues in advance before the implementation of diversary surgery at the level of clinical medicine.

2. The parties' assertion

The Plaintiff asserts that: (a) not only a considerable distance from the medical location of the Plaintiff at the time of the instant surgery, but also it was not confirmed that there was a special change in the Plaintiff’s long-term autopsy structure at the time of the instant surgery; (b) damage to kidney and kidney caused by this does not constitute a normal merger of ductal surgery; (c) the Defendant hospital’s medical team’s occurrence of kidne in the process of performing the instant dune surgery is due to the negligence of the medical staff of the Defendant hospital, such as the operation in the process of performing the instant duney surgery, and the Plaintiff was not negligent in performing the instant duney surgery, even if duney surgery was not considerably damaged by the Plaintiff’s duney surgery, and even if duney surgery was not considerably damaged by the Plaintiff’s efforts to perform the instant duney surgery at the time of performing the instant surgery, the Defendant hospital had been negligent in performing the instant duney surgery at the time of the instant surgery.

In regard to this, the Defendant confirmed that the blood transfusion occurred from the dystrophe of the dystrophe during the instant dystrophe surgery rather than due to the negligence of the medical personnel of the Defendant hospital rather than due to the negligence of the dystrophe of the dystrophe of the Defendant hospital, and ② Defendant hospital medical personnel confirmed that the dystrophe of the dystrophe in the instant dystrophe surgery occurred due to the long-term shock during the implementation of the dystrophe surgery, and promptly converted the dystrophe to the dystrophe, and then took all measures to explain that the dystrophe of the instant dystrophe is not exposed to the dystrophe of the dystrophe, but failed to perform the duty to explain the dystrophe in the process of performing the dystrophe surgery.

3. Judgment by issue

(a) Whether there was any negligence in the course of performing a ductal surgery;

(1) Principles (Presumption of Negligence in the event of a bad result beyond the scope of operation).

In a claim for damages due to a violation of a duty of care in medical practice, first of all, it should be proved that there was a medical negligence in the series of medical procedures on the basis of general awareness in the patient's side, and that there was no other cause between that act and damage occurred. However, as an area requiring highly specialized knowledge, it is extremely difficult for a general person, who is not an expert, to clarify whether a doctor's breach of a duty of care in the course of medical practice. In particular, it is difficult to prove that there was a doctor's meteorological negligence, including excessive operation of operating equipment, in the patient's side, in a medical act with strong speculativeness under exclusive control such as an operation by telegraphic anesthesia, it is more difficult to prove that there was a doctor's excessive operation of operating equipment, etc. in the patient's side. Therefore, at least in a claim for damages on the ground of a doctor's error in weather in the course of surgery by telegraphic anesthesia, there is

Therefore, in a case where other healthy parts not included in the scope of the surgery are damaged after the surgery, if the result of the surgery is deemed to be beyond the scope of the generally accepted merger certificate of the surgery, it shall be presumed that there was a doctor's negligence, such as excessive operation of the surgery apparatus. On the part of the doctor, even though he/she did not have any tactical weather or fulfilled his/her best duty as a doctor, he/she cannot avoid the surgery at the current medical level, and even if he/she did not prove special circumstances such as the patient's unique transfer of the patient or other similar causes, he/she cannot avoid the responsibility unless there is any proof, it shall be interpreted that he/she cannot avoid the responsibility unless there is any assertion or proof on the special circumstances such as that the patient's special transfer of the patient, etc. is caused by another cause.

(2) Determination

(A) Under such interpretation, the case holding that the following facts were found: (a) the Defendant hospital conducted laging surgery only with the scope of the surgery for the Plaintiff; (b) the laging laging laging laging laging laging laging laging laging laging laging laging laging laging laging laging laging laging laging lag; and (c) the laging laging laging laging laging laging laging laging laging laging laging laging laging laging laging laging laging laging laging laging laging laging laging laging laging laging laging laging laging laging laging laging laging laging laging.

(B) Meanwhile, in light of the Plaintiff’s medical records commission of 1 to 41 of the 1st century and the court’s fact-finding process, the Plaintiff’s surgery was conducted with a high range of time before and after 18:30 minutes after 10 minutes after 20 years ago, and the Plaintiff’s medical records were found to have been found to have been found to have been difficult to find that she had a high range of time during which she had a long time during which she had a long time during which she had a long time during which she had a long time during which she had a long time during which she had a long time during which she had a long time during which she had a long time during which she had a long time during which she had a long time during which she had a long time during which she had a long time after she had a long time to she had a high range of time during which she had a long time to she had a long time to she had a long time to she had a high level of her mouth.

(C) On the same basis, from the fact that there was a bad result of the eroscopic eroscopic eroscopic eroscopic eroscopic eroscopic eroscopic eroscopic eroscopic eroscopic eroscopic eroscopic eroscopic eroscopic eroscopic e

(b) Whether there has been a fault which has delayed the conversion into a part of a duct;

The medical personnel of the Defendant Hospital confirmed the Plaintiff’s past medical history during which the Plaintiff was subject to the Plaintiff’s medical treatment prior to the instant surgery, and even though the medical personnel of the Defendant Hospital confirmed that the Plaintiff had a serious kind of care on the part of the surgery immediately after the instant surgery started, the fact that the instant surgery was conducted while the Defendant Hospital performed a poppying surgery for about 40 minutes, which caused the Plaintiff to have a poppy, is the same as seen earlier.

Therefore, in light of the following circumstances, as to whether the medical personnel of the Defendant Hospital could evaluate the negligence of medical practice in the process of performing the surgery in the way of taking the surgery without immediately converting the surgery into the part of the surgery, the medical personnel of the first instance court's request for examination of medical records and the overall purport of oral arguments, which are acknowledged as follows: (a) even in the case of a patient who has the past history of the medication such as the Plaintiff due to the development of the current mouth and the equipment for surgery, there is no method of verifying the degree of exploitation in the mouth before the surgery; (b) there is no method of confirming the degree of exploitation in the mouth before the surgery; (c) in the present clinical medical level, there is no method of confirming the degree of exploitation in the mouth before the surgery; and (d) once the operation of the surgery is confirmed on the part of the surgery, it is difficult to find that the medical personnel of the Defendant Hospital continued to perform the surgery without giving due care to the maximum extent possible if it is confirmed on the part of the surgery.

C. Whether there was negligence in treating after damage to beer and beer

(1) The criteria for the duty of care of a medical person in a medical accident shall be grasped to the level that is normatively required, and the criteria for such duty of care shall not be considered according to the specific situation of the relevant medical doctor or medical institution. The criteria for such duty of care shall be determined on the basis of the standards for persons engaged in the same duties and duties as at the time of the accident (see Supreme Court Decisions 98Da50586, Jan. 21, 200; 2005Da64781, Sept. 20, 207; 2005Da64781, Sept. 20, 207). In a case where medical practice performed by a doctor is deemed to be the best in light of the medical level at the time of the medical practice, the doctor shall not be deemed to be negligent in performing the duty of care required for the treatment of the patient. Whether or not to take any measure on the basis of the method of diagnosis or diagnosis of the disease shall be determined on the patient's own situation and based on the patient's expertise.

(2) Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the statements and arguments as to the instant case’s health class, Gap evidence Nos. 7 and 11, the Defendant hospital had one medical specialist at the time of the instant case. However, it is recognized that the Defendant hospital’s medical specialist did not request the above blood department to cooperate with the above medical specialist, and that the Defendant hospital performed the efficial effic effic effic effic effic ef

However, comprehensively taking account of the Plaintiff’s 12 symptoms 7 through 10 and the overall purport of the argument on the medical record for the head of the university hospital of the first instance, if it is difficult to see that there is no possibility that the Plaintiff would have been infected with other substances, such as fladral fladral fladral fladral fladral fladral fladral fladral fladral fladral fladral fladral fladral fladral fladral fladral fladral fladral fladral fladral fladral flaf’s fladral fladral fladral flaf’s flaf’s fladral flaf’s flaf.

D. Whether the duty of explanation is violated

In light of the above, the medical doctor cannot be required to explain the risks that may not be anticipated due to the pertinent medical act, or that could not be predicted in light of the current medical standard (Supreme Court Decision 9Da10479 delivered on September 3, 199). According to the above, the malicious result of the kidne surgery that occurred after the instant lavecing surgery and the kidnecing surgery, which goes beyond the scope of the complication of lacing lacing surgery due to the lacing lacing surgery, it is difficult to view that the above lacing surgery was incidental to the above lac, or could have been predicted in light of the current medical standard. Thus, according to the evidence No. 1, the defendant hospital cannot be said to have the duty to explain the above lacing surgery, it cannot be said that the above lacing surgery was conducted before the Plaintiff’s long-term lacing surgery or lacing surgery, it cannot be accepted as the above lacing surgery or damage to the lacing surgery.

4. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case should be dismissed without any further determination, and the judgment of the court of first instance is justified with this conclusion. Thus, the plaintiff's appeal against the defendant is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Yan Jin-hun (Presiding Judge)