All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Where a physician provides medical treatment such as diagnosis, treatment, etc. as to the grounds of appeal related to negligence and causation, he/she has the duty of care to take the best measures required to prevent danger depending on the patient’s specific symptoms or circumstances in light of the nature of the duties

In particular, the diagnosis is the starting point of the clinical medicine, which is based on the results of the diagnosis, the promotion of the diagnosis, the promotion of the diagnosis, and various clinical tests to clarify the type, nature, degree of progress, etc. of the disease, and accordingly the treatment law is an important medical practice selected accordingly. As such, even though it is impossible to determine whether the complete clinical examination is negligent in the diagnosis, the determination of whether the relevant physician is negligent in the diagnosis should be based on whether the relevant doctor fulfilled the best duty of care necessary to anticipate the occurrence of the result and avoid the occurrence of the result by carefully diagnosing and accurately diagnosing patients based on the medical ethics, medical knowledge and experience required by the relevant physician within the scope of the diagnosis level performed in the field of clinical medicine at least in the field of clinical medicine.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Da35671 Decided June 24, 2010, etc.). The lower court acknowledged the facts as indicated in its reasoning. On February 21, 201, the lower court acknowledged the following facts: (i) Plaintiff A complained of symptoms that “I ambling without going through, and going through, the horses” at the time when I am to the emergency room of the Defendant Chungcheongnam-do Medical Center (hereinafter “Defendant hospital”) around February 14:39, 201; (ii) Defendant E, as a result of the examination of Defendant E, who is an emergency doctor, complained of the symptoms that “I ambling and mixed money”; and (iii) Defendant E failed to conduct the brain ambry examination and did not provide any specific treatment; and (iii) Defendant E’s medical record was not subject to the first ambling surgery at the time of the first diagnosis of the first ambling surgery at the National University Hospital.