2014Da10113 (Definition)

A

B

Jeonju District Court Decision 2013Na7960 Decided December 19, 2013

March 24, 2016

The part of the judgment below against the defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Jeonju District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the ground of appeal on negligence in the procedure

A. On June 12, 2008, the lower court determined that the Defendant was negligent in the instant procedure, on the ground that, in light of the following circumstances, there is sufficient probability that the instant disability could be presumed to have been caused by medical negligence by the Defendant’s damage to snow in the process of the instant procedure, since the Plaintiff had been in the process of an operation to sacrife the left-hand / 3 of sacrine 3 of sacrine sacrh after having been in the process of an anesthesia by the Defendant (hereinafter “the instant procedure”), the lower court found that there was negligence in the instant procedure.

(1) On June 23, 2008, after undergoing the instant treatment, the Plaintiff appealed to the Defendant Hospital for a 111th day after receiving the instant treatment, and filed an appeal for the embarrasium and an aesthetic sense, which were left left left by the Defendant Hospital. After that, the Defendant Hospital was provided five times with the treatment, but the above symptoms were not improved, and received the treatment for the said symptoms by going to the Defendant Hospital’s dental college hospital, due to the lack of the above symptoms.

(2) The Plaintiff, before receiving the instant treatment, did not have any senses or senses before being subjected to the instant treatment. The Plaintiff, after the instant treatment, shows the instant disability as of the date of occurrence of the symptoms.

(3) In the case of the Plaintiff’s physical examination, the Plaintiff sent a reply that “nanthical damage caused by injection and an autopsy on the stoke part of the stoke part of the stong part of the stong part of the stong part of the stong part of the stong part of the s tong part of the stong part of the stong part of the stong part of the stong part of the stong part of the stong part of the stong part of the stong part of the stong part of the stong part of the stong part of the stong part of the stong part of the stong part of the stong part of the stong part of the

(4) For the purpose of the 3th Daegu anesthesia, since the nanchopathal and urine are adjacent to the location of the nanchopathal and urine in order to dynasium, it seems that the nital is likely to cause damage to the nital if the nital and urine were to be injected into the nital.

(5) A knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife, and most abnormal spacife can be caused by chemical damage caused by knife knife knife knife, etc. due to damage to gnife, most abnormal gnife gnife can be gradually recovered even without treatment, but most abnormal sife scife can still remain permanently.

(6) The Plaintiff’s disability was revealed immediately after the instant procedure, and it appears that there was no possibility that the cause other than the instant procedure might have been opened, and there was no evidence to deem that the occurrence was closely related to the level of anesthesia performed by the Plaintiff while performing the instant procedure, and that there was a physical condition having internal factors that are easily likely to cause the instant disability.

B. However, the above determination by the lower court is difficult to accept.

(1) Medical practice requires highly specialized knowledge, which is extremely difficult for a general public to clarify whether a doctor’s duty of care has been violated in the course of medical practice, or whether there exists causation between a doctor’s breach of duty of care and the occurrence of losses. Therefore, it is also possible to presume the symptoms as medical negligence by proving indirect facts that, in the event of symptoms causing severe damage to a patient after an operation or a surgery, it is difficult to deem the symptoms to have any other reason than medical negligence. However, even in such a case, it is not permissible for a doctor to bear the burden of proof of negligence by estimatinging the causal relationship with a doctor’s negligence from a very heavy result with circumstances where the probability to presume the occurrence of a consequence is not guaranteed (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Da13843, May 10, 2015; 2015Da138433, May 29, 201).

(2) According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record, the following facts are as follows: (i) damage to an stopy may be caused by two causes causing damage to the stove in the course of anesthesia or from stove in the course of anesthesia; (ii) where stoves are destroyed by stoves due to stoves; (iii) where stoves due to s toves from stoves; (iv) where stoves are considerably short or lack in stoves due to stoves; and where stoves are closely adhered to s to stoves due to stoves; and (v) where stoves are destroyed by stoves due to stoves due to s to stoves; and (v) where s toves to the Plaintiff’s s tovestoves due to stoves due to stoves due to stoves.

According to the above circumstances, the disability of this case is likely to cause damage to snow by an injection, such as misunderstanding booms to the direction of an urgical brue, for the purpose of pulmonary anesthesia, in the course of the anesthesia for the purpose of pulmonary anesthesia. However, it cannot be ruled out that the possibility of inevitable damage due to the pulmonary bomb in the process of pulmonary bombing due to the Plaintiff’s brue cause, such as the Plaintiff’s bruting brue to the brus, etc., is also excluded. The circumstances cited by the lower court as the grounds for determination are merely the grounds for estimating the causal relationship between the instant procedure and the instant disability, and there are no sufficient grounds for excluding the possibility of damage caused by the brue brue brut damage. Therefore, it is difficult to view that the Defendant’s brue circumstance is likely to presume the Defendant

(3) Nevertheless, the court below acknowledged liability for damages by presumptioning the defendant's negligence with circumstances that are difficult to see that it is probable. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on medical malpractice, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. According to the relevant legal principles and records as to the grounds of appeal as to the violation of the duty to explain, the lower court is justifiable to have determined that the Defendant violated the Plaintiff’s right to self-determination at the time of the instant treatment on the grounds as stated in its reasoning. In so doing, the lower court did not err

However, in this case, the court below set the scope of liability for damages by comprehensively covering all the fact that the defendant's negligence and the violation of the duty to explain were committed in the course of the defendant's procedure, and as seen earlier, as long as the court below's judgment on negligence in the course of the defendant's procedure is erroneous and reversed, the damage portion caused by the defendant's violation of the duty to explain cannot be maintained

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the lower judgment against the Defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Sang-hoon

Justices Kim Jae-tae

Chief Justice Cho Jae-hee

Justices Park Sang-ok