Plaintiff (Attorney Yang Chang-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Samsung Bio Bio-Public Interest Foundation (Law Firm Sung, Attorneys Lee Dong-chul et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

December 14, 2017

Seoul Western District Court Decision 2012Gahap31406 Decided September 26, 2014

1. The plaintiff's appeal and the claim extended in the trial are all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal (including the costs of appeal arising from the claim extended by the trial court) shall be borne by the plaintiff.

[Claim]

The defendant paid 532,782,305 won to the plaintiff and its 532,782,305% per annum from December 1, 201 to the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, 20% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment (the plaintiff shall be 164,859,728 won per annum from the first instance court, 291, 454, 956 won per annum, 42,000 won per annum 498,314,684 won per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment (the plaintiff shall be 5% per annum from the day of complete payment), 20% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment, 305% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment (the plaintiff shall be 164,859,725% per annum, 200, 3608, 2015 won per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment).

【Purpose of Appeal】

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 428,53,358 won and the amount equivalent to 5% per annum from December 2, 2011 to February 20, 2014, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

A. Status of the parties

The Defendant is a juristic person operating ○○○ Hospital (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant hospital”), and the Plaintiff was a person who suffered damage to scarblings after having undergone an dog-scarcule circuit surgery, the left-hand beer circuit surgery at the Defendant hospital on December 1, 2011.

B. Execution of the Plaintiff’s internal guard and the instant surgery

1) On October 6, 2011, the Plaintiff complained of inconvenience when she walked, and the symptoms and the pains of the right bridge that have long been difficult, and applied to the Defendant Hospital. As a result of the RI test conducted by the medical personnel of the Defendant Hospital against the Plaintiff on October 19, 201, the Defendant hospital observed that serious vertebrate copins No. 4-5 of the Hack No. 4-6 of the Hack, the symptoms of the escape of the Hack, and the increase of disc 3-4 of the Hack-4 of the Hack.

2) At the time, the Plaintiff sought an explanation from the medical staff of the Defendant Hospital that the heart needs to be treated as a heart because it has been in progress from the medical staff of the Defendant Hospital, and tried to undergo an operation on the cryposis, after receiving first an operation on the operation on the part of the left-hand becoped becopium (hereinafter “the instant operation”).

3) On December 1, 201, the medical personnel of the Defendant Hospital performed the instant surgery against the Plaintiff. At the time of the instant surgery, the medical personnel of the Defendant Hospital performed an institutional insertion for general anesthesia.

C. Progress from the instant surgery to the discharge

1) After the instant surgery, from around 01:00 on December 2, 201, the Plaintiff was unable to move well to the Plaintiff, and the upper shouldered, but there were symptoms that booming the fingers or unfolding the fingers, and the Plaintiff’s symptoms were confirmed as the fladye costs due to the escape of protruding signboards No. 5-6.

2) Accordingly, the medical personnel of the Defendant Hospital performed the Plaintiff’s treatment, such as the Hague Act, the Switzerland Act, and the maintenance of assistive devices, etc. on December 5, 201, and on December 5, 201, the medical personnel of the Defendant Hospital performed the secondary operation (hereinafter “the second operation”).

3) After the second operation, the Plaintiff received preservation and rehabilitation treatment from the medical staff of the Defendant hospital, and transferred the Plaintiff to the △△△ Hospital on February 29, 2012.

D. The plaintiff's present state

On November 28, 2012, around the time of physical appraisal in the first instance trial, the Plaintiff is in need of continuous assistance from one person in his/her daily life, such as a deadly functional disorder of both descendants and a fall of both sides, and a burgical disability such as burgical burgical burgosis that remains in urterology, and a burgical burging, subject to restrictions on movement, and need to move one person.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, the result of the first instance court's commission of physical examination to the director of the Seoul Esaton Hospital, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Whether the instant surgery violated the duty of protection on the side of the drilling during the process of the instant surgery

1) The plaintiff's assertion

As a result of the RoI test of the Plaintiff before the instant surgery, it was found that there was an additional test on the Plaintiff’s 5-6 side signboard escape evidence before the instant surgery. ① The Defendant hospital’s medical team, as a result of the instant test, should have been given specific attention before anesthesia and surgery, and should have been given to the Plaintiff at the time of the instant surgery, even if it was confirmed that there was a reflectr of the lethropical lethropical lethropical ethropical ethropical ethropical ethropical ethropical ethropical ethropical ethropical ethropical ethropical ethropical ethropical ethropical ethropical ethropical ethropical ethropical ethropical ethropical ethropical ethropical ethropic ethropical ethrhe.

2) Determination

A) Relevant legal principles

Medical practice is an area requiring highly specialized knowledge, and it is very difficult for a general person, not an expert, to clarify whether a doctor has breached his/her duty of care in the course of medical practice, or whether there exists causation between a doctor’s breach of duty of care and a loss, so it is also possible to presume such symptoms as medical negligence by proving indirect facts that there are no other causes than medical negligence in the event of symptoms causing serious damage to a patient during the surgery. However, even in such a case, it is not permissible to assume that a doctor bears the burden of proof of negligence by estimating the causal relationship with a doctor’s negligence on the grounds that there is no possibility that the occurrence of symptoms is likely to be presumed as a result of a doctor’s negligence (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Da27442, Feb. 26, 2015).

B) Whether the pertinent additional inspection was not conducted prior to the instant operation

(1) In full view of the facts acknowledged earlier, the evidence mentioned earlier, and the results of each request for the examination of medical records by the head of the Seoul Hospital of the first instance, the head of the Korea Medical Association of the first instance, and the results of each fact-finding, and the overall purport of the arguments as a result of each request for the examination of medical records by the head of the Seoul Hospital of the Korea Medical Center of the first instance, the Plaintiff was found to have confirmed the pressure of the Plaintiff on December 2, 201 after the instant surgery, even though the Plaintiff did not appeal to symptoms related to the climatic, there was no need for the examination of the Plaintiff’s climatic from the MRI test of the GRI on December 2, 201, which was immediately after the instant surgery, and there was a climatic pressure of the Plaintiff’s climatic. The Defendant hospital’s medical team’s diagnosis of the Plaintiff’s climatic-6 escape and pressure of the Plaintiff before the instant surgery, and there was no need for the examination of the MF.

(2) On the other hand, in light of the following facts and circumstances, it is difficult to conclude that the medical personnel at the Defendant Hospital should have conducted additional inspections, such as MaI photographs against the Plaintiff before the instant surgery, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. The Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

① At the time of the Plaintiff’s visit to the Defendant Hospital, the Plaintiff complained of the crypology of the right bridge, etc., and did not appeal to the symptoms related to the crypology, and despite the Plaintiff’s awareness of the escape from the cryp of cryp, No. 5-6, the Plaintiff’s symptoms related to the Plaintiff’s crypology appears to have been insignificant to the extent that the Plaintiff did not plan to provide medical treatment for the said symptoms (hereinafter referred to as “the crypology of Macheon-do University”) as a result of the Plaintiff’s CRI examination, the Plaintiff’s symptoms related to the crypology of the Plaintiff appears to have been insignificant.

② The Korea Medical Doctor Association of the first instance (hereinafter “the Korea Medical Doctor Association”) responded to the request for the appraisal of medical records to the president of the Korean Medical Doctor Association of the first instance (hereinafter “the appraisal of medical records and the appraisal of the said case”) was found. However, in light of the Plaintiff’s appeal to the Defendant Hospital, it was reasonable to observe the progress before the instant operation, and presented a view that the Plaintiff’s appeal to the Defendant Hospital was made, and that the Plaintiff’s appeal to the said hospital was not recommended by the examination.

③ An appraiser who responded to the entrustment of the examination of medical records with respect to the head of the Seoul Hospital in the first instance (hereinafter referred to as “the evaluation of the department of anesthesia pain at the Macheon-do University”) also expressed that the method of making it possible to find out that the occurrence of maleculation is an examination for physical exercise/pathical power generation by blocking the operation of the relevant hospital. In the case of the relevant marc surgery, such as the instant surgery, the method of making it possible to find out the occurrence of maleculation by blocking the operation of the relevant hospital.

C) Whether the Plaintiff’s satisficial part of the Plaintiff’s satisfic part of the satisf

(1) Comprehensively taking account of the aforementioned facts, the evidence and the purport of the argument in Gap evidence No. 16, supra, the Plaintiff, even though there was no appeal to symptoms related to the vision prior to the instant operation, was confirmed at the time of the instant operation by using the engine insertion, which was immediately following the instant operation, and the Plaintiff’s pressure on the escape of conical signboards No. 5-6 in the light of the Round MRI to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff’s labbbine increase in the number of conical revenues. The Plaintiff’s labine increase was caused by the shortage of space in which the number of verts can be used in spine, and the Plaintiff’s labine labine labe labe labe labe labe labe labe labe labe labe labe lab in the process of the instant operation, and the Plaintiff’s labe labe lab lab labe labe la.

(2) On the other hand, in light of the following facts and circumstances, it is not sufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff’s malicious result occurred after the instant surgery of the telegraph withdrawal through an institutional insertion alone, in violation of the duty of care generally required in the process of inserting the Plaintiff’s medical staff in the process of inserting the Plaintiff’s title, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this. The Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

① The medical personnel at Defendant Hospital identified the Plaintiff’s condition two times before anesthesia the instant surgery. There was no particular error in the Plaintiff’s opening and necking, and it appears that there was no problem in the Plaintiff’s neck and ches even at the time of entering the operating room for the instant surgery, and there was no problem in the Plaintiff’s neck and ches.

② 1) A patient visit record book prepared by the medical staff of the Defendant Hospital: (a) the fact that there was no content related to the RI test result prior to the instant surgery, but did not contain any content related to the Mesium escape certificate No. 5-6. However, even if it was acknowledged that the first instance court’s Mesium did not have any specific difficulty in inserting the Mesium, it is difficult to view the Plaintiff’s Mesium to the effect that the Mesium was unable to anticipate the occurrence of the Mesium disease at the time of inserting the Mesium’s Mesium’s Mesium’s Mesium’s Mesium’s Mesium’s Mesium’s Mesium’s Mesium’s Mesium’s Mesium’s Mesium’s Mesium’s Mesium was inserted to the Mesium Seoul Hospital’s Mesium’s Mesium.

③ According to the medical examination and examination of the Mancheon-do University, the method of inserting the back part of the Mancheon-do University Protection Team in order not to deteriorate the Mancheon-do University anesthesia damage patients with the upper part of the Mancheon-do Medical Care Center, or inserting the Mancheon-do without cutting the Ban by using the Man-gu or video equipment inserting equipment, etc. However, in the case of minor Mancheon-gu Man-gu Man-si Man-si Man-si, there is no ground that the above method should be used, and as long as the Man-si Man-si Man-si Man-si Man-si was not considerably unstable even after the operation of the Man-si Man-si Man-si Man-si Man-si Man-si Man-si Man

D) Whether there was negligence in failing to take measures to prevent overcoming communications during the instant surgery

(1) Although the Plaintiff complained of symptoms related to the climatic part before the instant surgery, on December 2, 201, immediately after the instant surgery, the Plaintiff’s pressure to escape from the climatic part No. 5-6 of the climatic part on December 2, 201 and the Plaintiff’s climatic part was confirmed, and the Plaintiff’s climatic part showed the symptoms of the climatic part.

(2) However, on the other hand, in light of the above legal principles, it is not sufficient to recognize that the Defendant Hospital’s medical team caused a serious disease or injury to the Plaintiff by negligence, such as making the medical team of this case maintain an inappropriate attitude while performing the instant operation, and there is no other evidence to support this otherwise. The Plaintiff’s assertion in this part is without merit. The Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

① While there is a medical opinion of the appraiser who responded to each entrustment of medical record appraisal with respect to the head of the Sincheon-do University Seoul Hospital (hereinafter referred to as the “Secheon-do University”) in order to conduct the instant surgery, it is essential to scarcity and two sub-councils in mind that the scarcity and two sub-councils performed against the Plaintiff could grow out of the scarcity because the scarcity and the scarcity were worn out, and the scarcity and the scarcity might lead to the scarcity, so it is practically difficult to regulate the degree of scarcity correctly in line with the patient’s scarcity in the actual surgery, and it is difficult to expect the patient’s scarcity and two sub-councils to respond to the examination request of the medical record appraisal request of the Seoul Hospital of Macheon-do University (hereinafter referred to as the “Macheon-do University”). However, it is difficult to predict the degree of scarcity and the examination result of the patient’s scarcity and two sub-council.

② In addition, even if there is a need for medical treatment to take a attitude to prevent scambling in order to minimize severe external strengths attributable to the scambling during the instant surgery, and to treat scamical scamblings, etc., it is merely a general medical opinion (this answer that there is no part determined by the negligence of the medical staff of the Defendant hospital in relation to the operation, etc. as mentioned below). In order to prevent the Plaintiff’s scambling in the instant surgery, it is limited to a method to keep the scambling of the scambling in the head, etc., or to keep the scambling of the scambling in the head, etc., while considering the degree of scambling, it is difficult for the Defendant hospital to properly control the degree of scambling the scambling and scambling in the instant surgery and to control the degree of scambling of the surgery.

③ While the 10 hours or more of the instant surgery is continuing as in the state of over-the-counter (the attitude in which the external strength is increased on the conical signboard), it seems that there is a possibility that the existing conical signboard escape symptoms will be worse if the operation continues, such as the instant surgery, while the Plaintiff appears to be “In the case of the Plaintiff, the possibility of the aggravation of the conical signboard escape symptoms after the 10 hours operation at his/her length is low, and the external history attached to the conical signboard in his/her attitude is low, and the external history that is put on the conical signboard in his/her attitude,” the electronic opinion merely appears to have presented the general possibility of the aggravation of the conical signboard escape symptoms for the conical patient.

④ The first instance court and the party medical record appraisal commission and fact-finding inquiries were common in their opinions that “the Plaintiff’s scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopics

⑤ Although the Medical Doctors Association of Korea Medical Doctors and Macheon University Macheon-do Medical Doctors have expressed their opinions that the causal link between the instant surgery (including anesthesia) and the Plaintiff’s present disability is partially recognized, this means that the Plaintiff’s present disability, separate from whether the Plaintiff’s medical malpractice in the instant surgery was performed after the instant surgery, is in relation thereto, and as such, the department of anesthesia pain medicine and appraisal of Macheon-do Medical Personnel, did not have any negligence in the course of the instant surgery or treatment after the instant surgery, and even if the instant surgery or anesthesia was caused by the instant surgery, it cannot be deemed that there was a problem in treatment.”

B. Whether to delay the second surgery

1) The plaintiff's assertion

After the instant surgery, the medical personnel at Defendant Hospital: (a) confirmed the Plaintiff’s view of pressureing the number of times to escape from the warning board No. 5-6 in December 2, 201, following the instant surgery; (b) had been conducted in an emergency within 48 hours; (c) however, the Defendant Hospital performed the secondary surgery only on December 5, 201, and caused the Plaintiff to the effect that the Plaintiff was permanently damaged by scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopics.

2) Determination

A) A doctor in charge of the life and health of a human being requires the best duty of care necessary to prevent risks in light of the nature of his/her duties. Therefore, a doctor shall exercise the best care in consideration of all circumstances, such as the effect and side effects of treatment methods, based on his/her own medical knowledge at the time of treatment. The standard of such duty of care shall be determined according to the medical level based on the practice of so-called clinical medicine at the time of treatment (see Supreme Court Decision 96Da5933, Feb. 11, 1997). A doctor shall be deemed to have considerable discretion in choosing methods of treatment deemed appropriate according to the patient’s situation, the above medical level, and his/her own knowledge, and one of them shall not be deemed to have been negligent in taking any other measures (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da5867, May 31, 2007).

B) According to the evidence revealed earlier, the Plaintiff’s symptoms in the Malabro had been raised after the instant surgery. The reason is recognized as the following: (a) the Plaintiff’s side pressure was the Plaintiff’s side pressure from the escape; (b) the Plaintiff’s side pressure from the escape; and (c) when a serious chronic pressure was caused by an acute exposure, it constitutes an emergency pressure adaptation certificate; and (d) in such a case, it is recognized that the Plaintiff may prevent permanent progress damage if the Plaintiff conducts a clibal pressure within 24-48 hours after the symptoms occurred, it is the medical opinion of the Korean Medical Association Association, the Korean Medical Doctor’s Association, the Ethical opinion of the Ethical University, the Ethical Medical Personnel of the Defendant Hospital, and the fact that the Plaintiff performed the secondary surgery against the Plaintiff on December 5, 201.

However, in light of the above legal principles, considering the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively considering the purport of the entire argument at the time of examining the instant case in light of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, it is difficult to view that the Defendant hospital’s medical personnel engaged in the secondary surgery was negligent in delaying the secondary surgery because it is difficult to see that the medical personnel exceeded the reasonable scope of choice of the method of treatment, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise. This part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

① Since the Plaintiff’s conduct of the instant operation was in force after the instant operation, it is difficult to view that the operation was delayed on December 5, 201, when the Plaintiff confirmed the symptoms of the Plaintiff on December 2, 201, and waits for the second operation of the stroke while waiting for the stroke, it is difficult to conclude that the second operation was conducted on December 5, 201, and that the causal relationship between the time of the second operation and that of the first operation is difficult to predict.

② In addition, given that the instant surgery is recommended to be implemented within 24-48 hours on the premise that “in the case of an emergency voltage, such as the second surgery, where it is possible to provide an emergency treatment,” it is desirable to conduct an identification seizure of the Plaintiff according to the diagnosis confirmed as a result of MOI on December 2, 10, 201, based on the premise that “the implementation of the second surgery is recommended within 24-48 hours.” On the other hand, it is presumed that the time when the instant surgery is being conducted due to the aggravation of the poppy escape symptoms No. 5-6 of the king 5-6 of the 19th Toppy, which was presumed to have been conducted before December 2, 2011, the second surgery was conducted after 48 hours, and it is inevitable to verify the second surgery’s delay in the first surgery where it is difficult to provide an emergency treatment at the time of emergency treatment, and it is difficult to maintain the Plaintiff’s life pressure at the time of emergency surgery.”

③ Furthermore, upon the Plaintiff’s confirmation of the end of the instant surgery, the medical team of the Defendant Hospital performed the second surgery after observing the recovery of the overall condition and heal condition while performing the second surgery while performing the secondary surgery, such as the maintenance of the Hague Act and the Switzerland’s mass dysium, etc. In light of the content of the instant surgery, the medical team of the Defendant Hospital presented a view that “the treatment process of the Defendant Hospital is medically appropriate, since it is the Plaintiff’s treatment after performing the second surgery to lower the risk of emergency pressure when it is highly dangerous in the case of the Plaintiff.” In light of the content of the performance assessment on the Plaintiff immediately after the instant surgery, the Plaintiff’s temporary treatment of the Plaintiff, such as mass dysium, etc., was conducted.

On December 2, 2011, the statement of the right-hand side-hand side-hand side-hand side-hand side-hand side-hand side-hand side-hand side-hand side-hand side-hand side in the main text is to know, but it is not well-known, but it is expressed that it is 08:00 220,00, or any 41: 00 41: 00 on December 3, 201, and 05: 04: 104: 40 on April 4, 201, and 10: 04: 04: 104: 104: 104: 404: 104: 104: 410, 1004 4: 42: 42: 410-5. 23-4, 201, and 4: 420 on each end of the 24: 200 p.

④ Since the medical personnel at Defendant Hospital had no symptoms before the instant surgery, and the Plaintiff’s situation was temporarily improved in accordance with the aforementioned treatment, such as the steromatic method, etc., it seems difficult to readily conclude whether the symptoms after the instant surgery were caused by blood transfusion from the steropic, and whether it was pressured by disks.

C. Whether the duty of explanation is violated

1) The plaintiff's assertion

A) The medical staff of the Defendant Hospital sufficiently explained that the Plaintiff, for whom the escape certificate before the instant surgery, was confirmed, may result in the scambling from the pressure of the scambling by the instant surgery or institution insertion, due to the pressure from the scambling of the scambling, and did not explain it even though the Plaintiff had been able to choose the treatment method and time.

B) In addition, the medical personnel of the Defendant Hospital should have explained the necessity and timing of the second surgery so that the Plaintiff can determine the necessity and timing of the second surgery, if the need of the second surgery was confirmed after the instant surgery.

2) Determination

A) Generally, a doctor has a duty to explain in advance the symptoms of a disease, the contents and necessity of treatment methods, the risks to life and expected risks to the body, side effects, etc. of a patient, and to have the patient have an opportunity to decide whether to comply with the surgery or medication by explaining in advance the relevant patient's medical treatment level, unless the patient is an emergency patient or in other special circumstances. Such duty to explain cannot be exempted solely on the ground that there is little possibility of danger and side effects, etc. on the expected life and body, and in cases where the risk, side effects, etc. are typically dangerous or irrecoverable, such risk and side effects, etc. are not subject to explanation notwithstanding the scarcity of the possibility of occurrence (see Supreme Court Decision 96Da7854, Feb. 13, 1998). However, a doctor cannot be obliged to explain in light of the degree of risk not expected due to the relevant medical act or expected risks as at the time of the pertinent medical treatment (see Supreme Court Decision 90Da3994, Sept. 194, 1999).

B) The aforementioned evidence, as follows, comprehensively considering the overall purport of the arguments as to the medical records of this case concerning Gap evidence No. 15, Eul evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, the first instance court's first instance Seoul Hospital (anesthesia surgery), and the President of the Korean Medical Association (outstanding surgery), and the following facts and circumstances, which are, prior to performing the instant surgery, explain the surgery and anesthesia purpose, methods, anticipated risks and mergers, etc. before obtaining written consent from the plaintiff, and explain the medical records of this case before conducting the instant surgery. In light of the following facts, it seems that the plaintiff's assertion that the medical records of this case were not subject to the duty of explanation on the medical records of this case, such as brain cerebr, cerebrovassis, repathal damage, and liveral damage, etc., and that the plaintiff's explanation on the possibility of causing severe harm to the patient's surface of this case, and that the plaintiff's explanation on the medical records of this case was not subject to the duty of explanation on the medical records of this case.

C) Furthermore, considering the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the aforementioned evidence, i.e., the medical personnel at Defendant Hospital, after the instant surgery, appears to have explained the Plaintiff’s present situation after the Plaintiff’s occurrence of neological disorder. The determination of the time of the surgery in light of the Plaintiff’s present situation at the time of the Plaintiff’s medical personnel at Defendant Hospital is based on the highly medical judgment of the medical personnel at Defendant Hospital, and it is difficult to see that there was any negligence in selecting the time of the second surgery by the Plaintiff, and that it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff would have been selected to undergo the second surgery as an emergency in a situation where there is still high possibility of permanent disability because it is not always possible for the Plaintiff to avoid permanent disability, and it is difficult to see that the medical personnel at Defendant Hospital was negligent in violating its duty to explain the necessity and timing of the second surgery. This part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, the plaintiff's appeal of this case and the claim extended in the court of first instance shall be dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Jae-won (Presiding Judge)

Note 1) Evidence No. 143, 144 pages

2) The instant medical record appraisal report’s answer to the medical record appraisal report’s response (Article 8 of the reply of August 22, 2013) provides that “The measures taken under the head’s supervision to prevent the crypt during the instant surgery were appropriate.” On the other hand, the reply to the reply to the inquiry of the fact-finding (Article 4 of the reply of May 15, 2014) reveals that “the use of cryp is not the prevention of the cryp, but the operation to assist the cryp,” but the response to the examination of the above medical record appraisal is inconsistent with the response to the request of the medical record appraisal as seen earlier. However, the response to the above medical record appraisal is to take the head under the part of the crypology, such as the instant operation, to prevent the cryption, and the purport of the reply to the fact-finding is to prevent the cryption by helping the patient at the end of the cryp.

3) The following table numbers refer to the grade. The grade 5 is the normal condition in which a movement is possible even when grade 4 is severely low, and Grade 4 is grade scarde scarde scarde scarde scarde scarde scarde scarde scarde 3 when it is possible to grade grade to a certain degree of heavy power, but grade 2 is moved toward a horizontal direction, but it is impossible to move vertically, when grade 1 cannot be seen as the grade 0 cannot be seen as the grade snade at all.

Note 4) See Evidence 155 to 158 of this title

Note 5) See Nos. 1 and 204