The case holding that a medical malpractice liability of a doctor shall be denied on a fetus with the right-of-the-hand chyme gun due to provokingtion during childbirth.

The case holding that in a case where the head of the fetus at the time of delivery was divided into part of a woman's body, but the period of occurrence is about 0.6 to 1.4%, and the risk factor with respect to the occurrence of the affected child was not clearly revealed until now, so it is difficult for a doctor to predict the affected child at the level of modern medical science, and in a case where a doctor gives a reasonable treatment in accordance with the delivery techniques generally required at the time of the occurrence of the towed child, even if the fetus at part of a woman was finished with the right upper part of the child's body, it cannot be deemed that there was a medical negligence against a doctor even if the fetus at part of a woman was finished with the upper part of the child's body.

[1] Article 750 of the Civil Code

Plaintiff 1 and three others (Law Firm Han River, Attorneys Hong Young-min et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

J. (Law Firm Korea, Attorneys Lee Young-dae et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 7,315,927 won, gold 5,00,000 won to the plaintiff 3, gold 3,000,000 won to the plaintiff 4, and 5% per annum from April 3, 1998 to the date of the decision of this case, and 25% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

1. Basic facts

The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or may be acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the following facts: Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 13-1 through 3, Eul's evidence Nos. 4, 5, 7, and 9, and the result of this court's entrustment of physical examination to the director of an Aju University Hospital and the result of this court's entrustment of medical examination to the Korean Medical Association.

A. On August 22, 1997, the plaintiff 3 was admitted to the defendant hospital on August 2, 1997, after the pregnancy diagnosis was conducted for the first time with the enzymnasium 2 (hereinafter referred to as the "the defendant hospital") located in Suwon-si, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, 1-9 (hereinafter referred to as the "the defendant hospital"), the plaintiff 3 gave birth to the defendant hospital on March 4, 18, 1992 on the date of pregnancy (the date of pregnancy 1 week at that time, April 11, 1998), and on March 28, 1998. The plaintiff 3 was admitted to the defendant hospital on April 39, 199, and was born to the defendant hospital on March 39, 1998.

B. In the process of Plaintiff 1’s delivery, at around 15:20 on April 3, 1998, the Defendant administered the Plaintiff 3 by mixing it with 500cc per annum 500cc per annum 500cc per minute. At around 17:35 on the same day, the Defendant administered the Plaintiff 3 by mixing it with 500cc per minute 50cc per minute 500cc per minute 57:50 on the same day. At around 17:50 on the same day, Plaintiff 1 attempted to complete the part of the Plaintiff 3’s womb, while Plaintiff 1’s head was well at the right end, but at this point, the Defendant completed the Plaintiff’s operation of the part of the mother’s mouth, making the fetus pressure into the part of the mother’s mouth, and completed the Plaintiff’s operation of the part of the part of the mother’s mouth (hereinafter “the part of the part of the part of the Plaintiff”).

(c)The plaintiff 1 is expected to be treated permanently because of the transformation of the right arms and the opinion of the opening of the Gu on April 6, 1998 at Suwon-si, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, 93, by being transferred to the sexual empty hospital of the Nlock University, but due to the current cost of the right-hand petal gun, it is expected that the functional disorder of the upper right-hand area and the developmental disorder of the area will remain permanently.

D.The plaintiff 4 is the representative of the plaintiff 1, and the plaintiff 2 is the father of the plaintiff 4 and 1.

2. Judgment on the plaintiffs' assertion

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

If the Defendant measured the size of the accurate fetus (Plaintiff 1; hereinafter the same shall apply) by measuring the plebial size of the fetus in consideration of the fact that Plaintiff 3’s height in the process of the mountain field examination is 149cm and that the frame is relatively small, the Plaintiffs asserted that, in advance, it would have been able to predict the ambling acid in advance and select a safe delivery method, such as the operation of the king, even though the fetus could not take a plebial size measurement, and that, in addition, the Plaintiffs attempted only the ambalmology that can estimate the size of the fetus and the size of the body of the fetus to measure the possibility of mass delivery by predicting the size of the fetus and the size of the ambalone, without causing any ambalmology measurement, and that Plaintiff 3 was responsible for compelling Plaintiff 1 to use the ambalmosis at an unreasonable rate even after 00 minutes after the ambalmalmosis and the ambal body.

(b) Markets:

(1) Whether there was an unpredicted fault or negligence on the part of the defendant who had failed to predict the protein.

In light of the fact that the Defendant did not measure the upper end of the fetus in the process of the Plaintiff 3’s diagnosis, the Defendant did not have any dispute between the parties, on the other hand, evidence Nos. 10-2, Nos. 10-2, and Nos. 12, and Nos. 11-2, and Nos. 12 of this Court’s opinion, it is difficult to determine the possibility of using the Plaintiff’s fetus’s 10-1,000 square meters in light of the following facts: (a) the Defendant’s 4-1,000 square meters of the 6-1,000 square meters of the 3-1,000 square meters of the 4-2,000 square meters of the 3-2,000 square meters of the 4-2,000 square meters of the 4-2,000 square meters of the 4-2,000 square meters of the 1-2,0000 square meters of the 1.

(2) Whether there was negligence that caused the Defendant to be protruding.

In the process of Plaintiff 1’s delivery, the fact that the Defendant, around April 3, 1998, administered the Plaintiff 3 with F.2a of P.L. L. L.W. L. L. L.W. L. L. L.W. L. L.W. L. L.W. L. L.W. L. L.W. L.W. L. L.W. L.W. L.W. L.W. L.W. L.W. L.W. L.W. 1. L.W. 1. L.W. 1. L.W. 1. L.W. 1.

(3) Whether the defendant was negligent in not using the normal delivery technique to be taken at the time of protruding.

In light of the above evidence, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant, to the extent that it caused the Plaintiff 3 to 1,00c her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her.

A false doctor may choose the method of medical treatment deemed appropriate among the patient's situation, the level of medical care at the time, and several measures that may be considered based on his professional knowledge and experience, and unless it deviates from the reasonable discretion, it cannot be said that only one of them is justified and there is negligence in taking other measures. In light of the above facts, in the light of the above facts, the defendant seems to have taken a reasonable measure in accordance with the delivery method that is generally required at the time of the occurrence of the check, and on the premise of the opposing opinion, the defendant's assertion that the defendant led the plaintiff 1 to the plaintiff 1 without using a normal technique is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since it cannot be deemed that there was medical negligence like the plaintiffs' assertion by the defendant, the plaintiffs' claim of this case premised on the medical negligence of the defendant is dismissed in entirety as it is without any need to further examine the amount of damages, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Shin Young-ro (Presiding Judge) and Jin Park Jin-il Awards and Decorations