beta
Text
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
Reasons
1. The reasoning for this part of the basic facts is as stated in Paragraph 1 of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except in the following cases:
In the fourth 4th 19th son, the court's "court" shall be deemed to be the "the first instance court".
2. The defendant hospital asserted that the plaintiffs' second blood transfusion of the plaintiff A caused the plaintiff's second blood transfusion by removing the plaintiff's excreta, resulting in the plaintiff's in an unidentified state, and did not explain to the plaintiff himself/herself as required before the first operation or removal of the distribution pipe.
Therefore, as a tort, the Defendant hospital is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 883,584,469 (affirmative damages of KRW 47,488,117) (affirmative damages of KRW 806,150,352) to the Plaintiff, KRW 20,000,000, and KRW 10,000,000, and delay damages to the Plaintiff C.
3. Determination
A. Determination on negligence in the process of removing excreta 1) Medical practice is an area requiring highly specialized knowledge, and it is extremely difficult for a general person, not an expert, to clarify whether he/she violated his/her duty of care in the process of medical practice or whether there exists a causal link between the violation of his/her duty of care and the occurrence of damage. Therefore, it is possible to presume that the symptoms were based on medical negligence by proving indirect facts that it is difficult to see that there are other causes than medical negligence in the event the symptoms causing death to a patient during the surgery occur during the surgery. However, even in such a case, it is not permissible for a doctor to bear the burden of proof of negligence by estimating the causal relationship with the doctor’s negligence on the grounds that there is no possibility to presume the occurrence of the outcome by a doctor’s negligence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 28 October 28, 2004).