The contents of the duty of care required for a doctor to perform medical practice and the standard for determining whether there is negligence in the diagnosis.

Article 750 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 98Da45379, 45386 Decided March 26, 199 (Gong1999Sang, 772) Supreme Court Decision 2007Da55866 Decided July 8, 2010 (Gong2010Ha, 1533) Supreme Court Decision 2010Da76849 Decided September 13, 2012

Plaintiff 1 and two others (Attorney Lee Jae-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and three others (Law Firm Sejong, Attorneys Kim Sun-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Gwangju High Court Decision 2008Na2901 Decided February 25, 2011

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. A physician has a duty of care to take the best measures required to prevent risks depending on the patient’s specific symptoms or circumstances in light of the characteristics of the duties of managing the patient’s life, body, and health. The above duty of care is based on the level of medical practice performed in the clinical medicine field, such as a medical institution at the time of the medical practice. Since the level of medical care is generally known and recognized at the time of the medical practice by an ordinary doctor, it should be identified at a normative level in light of the environment and conditions of the medical practice, the peculiarity of the medical practice, etc. Furthermore, diagnosis is a starting point of a clinical medicine that determines whether a disease has been discovered or not and determines its kind, character, and degree of progress. Thus, in determining whether a diagnosis was negligent, it is important that the treatment law is selected accordingly. Although it is impossible to conduct the complete clinical diagnosis, the doctor’s duty of care should be determined within the scope of the level of diagnosis conducted at least 30 times in the clinical medicine field, and it should be determined that the doctor has the best ethical knowledge and experience required and risk of the patient 97.

2. We examine the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine.

A. The part concerning Defendant 1 and the Military Medical Center of Jeollabuk-do

The court below's rejection of the plaintiffs' assertion that the medical personnel of the Gunsan Medical Center of Jeollabuk-do did not take necessary measures to diagnose the deceased non-party's food services, taking into account the following circumstances, such as the birth and illness, diagnostic method, the deceased non-party's symptoms and medical opinions, and the measures taken by the above Defendants, etc. by the time of the birth of the deceased, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to medical malpractice.

B. Defendant 2

The court below's determination that it is not sufficient to recognize the plaintiffs' assertion that Defendant 2 made a food Do-do-do-do-do-do-do-do-Si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si

C. The part of Defendant Jeonbuk University Hospital

In full view of the symptoms and various tests of the deceased non-party, treatment methods of satchitis, etc., degree of damage to satchitis and large connection, and the inevitable nature of satisfying surgery, the possibility of re-satisfying surgery, and measures taken by medical professionals after surgery, etc., the court below rejected the plaintiffs' assertion that there was negligence in the process of surgery, such as delaying surgery to medical professionals in the process of surgery, satisfying ties during surgery, and failing to manage satisfy after surgery, and there was no violation of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, nor any misapprehension of legal principles as to medical malpractice.

3. Therefore, all appeals are 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 on the bench.

Justices Lee In-bok (Presiding Justice)