Whether a doctor on duty is obligated to take emergency measures against a patient due to a disease other than his/her own specialized field (affirmative)

Even if a doctor was a doctor on duty, who is not a woman in childbed but a medical specialist, he/she has a duty of care to provide the best treatment required to prevent any danger according to the patient's specific symptoms or circumstances, in light of the nature of duties as a doctor to manage human life, body, and health, unless the woman in childbed and no medical specialist exists.

Article 750 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellee)

Plaintiff 1 and one other (Attorney Hun-Ba et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Attorney Yoon-young et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 96Na16768 delivered on October 15, 1996

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the judgment of the court below, the court below acknowledged the facts in full view of the evidence and found the facts as stated in its reasoning. According to the facts, the non-party 1 of the nurse of the instant hospital, who is an employee of the defendant, sent the surgery to the plaintiff 1 and his/her mother hospital for two times via telephone, and asked the plaintiff 1 and his/her fetus's explanation about whether it is possible to conduct the surgery at the time, and the above hospital did not have a doctor capable of conducting the surgery at the time, and the non-party 2, the sole doctor capable of attending the above hospital, despite the point of one hour's attendance at the above hospital, did not confirm whether the situation of the above plaintiff and the fetus was in a dangerous condition until the above plaintiff 2 arrives at the hospital: The non-party 2 was unable to send the above surgery to the plaintiff 1 and the above plaintiff 2, who was negligent in sending the surgery at the time of the above 0-hour contact with the plaintiff 1 and the above plaintiff 2, who did not immediately start the surgery at the above 10-hour.

In light of the records, the fact-finding and judgment of the court below are just and acceptable, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence as pointed out in the theory of lawsuit. The arguments are without merit.

2. The court below is just in the judgment below that the defendant neglected to perform the duty of care to prevent any danger according to the patient's specific symptoms or circumstances, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles, such as the assertion of the lawsuit, in the absence of a medical specialist, if the defendant was a medical doctor on duty, and there is no medical doctor on duty. The judgment below is justified in holding that the defendant neglected to perform the duty of care to prevent any danger, in light of the nature of the duty as a doctor to manage the life, body, and health of a person, insofar as the plaintiff 1 was immediately in an urgent situation requiring an operation on duty, as legally determined by the court below, in the absence of a medical doctor on duty.

3. The fact-finding or determination of the ratio of comparative negligence in a claim for damages caused by tort falls under the exclusive authority of a fact-finding court unless it is deemed significantly unreasonable in light of the principle of equity. In light of the records, the measures that the court below held that the plaintiffs' negligence is 40% can be justified for the reasons as stated in its holding, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to comparative negligence in light of the principle of equity. There is no ground for discussion.

4. Therefore, the defendant's appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Don-hee (Presiding Justice)