Plaintiff (Law Firm Na, Attorney Lee Na-soo, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul National University Hospital and 3 others (Law Firm Gyeong & Yang, Attorneys Kim Jae-hwan et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

March 25, 2008

1. The annual household of the defendant school foundation shall pay to the plaintiff 39,584,458 won with 5% interest per annum from December 2, 2005 to April 8, 2008 and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. The remaining claims against the Plaintiff’s school of the annual household of the Defendant Educational Foundation and the claims against Defendant Seoul National University Hospital and Defendant 2 and 4 (Co-defendants of the lower judgment) are dismissed, respectively.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, 2/3 of the portion arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s annual household school shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the said Defendant shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The Defendants jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff 133,468,390 won with 5% interest per annum from December 2, 2005 to the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the full payment date.

1. Basic facts

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or are recognized by Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 11 (including the branch number), Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 13 (including the branch number), and the purport of this court's request for the examination of medical records for the head of Seoul 3 Hospital.

A. Status of the parties

The defendant Seoul National University Hospital established and operated Seoul National University Hospital (hereinafter referred to as the "Seoul National University Hospital"), and the school of the senior generation of the defendant school foundation (hereinafter referred to as the "Syna Hospital"), respectively. The defendant 2 is the Seoul National University Hospital, and the outside doctor working at the Syna Hospital, and the defendant 4 is the outside doctor working at the Syna Hospital.

B. The Plaintiff’s history of the internal police officer of the Synish Hospital

(1) On July 2005, the Plaintiff’s regular health checkup conducted each year, and around July 2005, discovered a suspicion of a large size of the dyne to the right bank in the comprehensive health checkup conducted by the Korean Institute of Medical Research, which led to the Defendant 4, a doctor outside the above hospital, submitted a protopy photo to the Defendant 4, a doctor outside the above hospital, and received treatment.

(2) 피고 4는 2005. 11. 15. 세브란스병원 영상의학과에 의뢰하여 원고에 대한 유방초음파검사를 시행하여 원고의 오른쪽 유방 8시, 10시 방향과 왼쪽 유방 5시, 10시 30분 방향에 종양이 있는 것을 발견하고, 미세침(14gage core needle)을 오른쪽 8시 방향 및 왼쪽 5시 방향의 종양에 삽입하여 조직을 채취한 후 병리과에 조직검사를 의뢰하였다.

(3) The organization removed as referred to in the above paragraph (2) was created by the sbin hospital path and medical professionals with pinine block. In other words, part of the sick part of the sbin block was made simply cut and H&E slick (the original structural inspection) was made. The sbin hospital pathology and the doctor non-party 1, 2, and 3 inspected the original structural inspection, and concluded that the slick of the slin bank was “sleep of the slin bank” and the slick of the original structural inspection was “the slin of the slin bank, the slin of the left bank, the slin of the back bank, the slin of the back bank,” and concluded that the s

(4) On November 22, 2005, Defendant 4 diagnosed that the Plaintiff’s right-side end is cancer based on the results of the above inspection, and decided that Defendant 4 would implement the relevant surgery against the Plaintiff (However, it is unclear in the medical record that the scope of the surgery he/she intended to implement, and the range of the species determined to be one of the species of the right-side bank.)

C. The Plaintiff’s implementation of the background for the power generation of the Seoul Metropolitan Hospital and the evaculation;

(1) On November 28, 2005, the Plaintiff issued a CD, etc. with the result of organizational inspection, a copy of medical records, and a copy of an ultra-wave photograph from the Symna Hospital on November 28, 2005, and requested the Defendant 2 to provide medical treatment by visiting the Seoul Symna Hospital on the same day.

(2) Defendant 2, on the day of internal investigation, conducted a simple promotion inspection to the Plaintiff, and decided to conduct an climatic operation on the Plaintiff’s right bank by reliance on the results of the pathology inspection and the written diagnosis.

(3) On November 30, 2005, the Plaintiff was hospitalized in the Seoul Central Hospital. On the same day, Defendant 2 knew the Plaintiff’s location and exact scope of the disease, and conducted a protopy test and a protopy test to verify the existence of other malicious diseases within the river basin. As a result of the test, each kind was found in the direction of 10 City/Do, 8 to 9 City/Do, and 3.5 City/Do on the left side of the road. On the other hand, each type was found in the direction of 10 City/Do, 8 to 9 City, and 3.5 City/Do on the left side of the river. As a result, the other side of the examination showed a heading dog, which is almost consistent with the results of the examination by the Boban Hospital.

(4) According to the results of the examination by the medical staff of the film department of the Seoul Central Hospital, Defendant 2 presumed to have performed an organizational inspection at the Syna Hospital in the direction of 10 clocks on the Plaintiff’s right side. On December 2, 2005, Defendant 2 determined to implement an organizational inspection at the Syna Hospital as a type of disease (C4 diseases) where there is a possibility of prone transfer cancer in the direction of 8 to 9 cc. In addition, there is no widely distributed stone in the surrounding area, and there is no suspicion that there is a bad sex on other parts, and so, he saw 1/4 of the right bank at the right side. In order to confirm the existence of the bad sex on the other parts, he saw the synasium by controlling the synasium and the Plaintiff’s synasium operation on the right side (hereinafter “the Plaintiff’s synasium operation”).

(5) Defendant 2: (a) requested the Seoul Central Hospital Hospital pathology and medical professionals to conduct a tissue test on the slive organization of the right bank of the right bank that was removed and removed; (b) Defendant 2, as a result of the organizational test, requested the Plaintiff to borrow slives from the slive body that was removed from the slive body of the slives hospital without detection of cancer cells.

(6) On December 17, 2005, the Plaintiff borrowed sloids from the Slive Hospital, and submitted them to the sloids' clinical room on December 19, 2005. The Seoul Dricks' hospital and medical professionals read the slicks' originals of the organization examination, and concluded that there was no remaining slives' cells, and that there was no slives's transfer of slive cells to the slives' cells.

(7) On December 22, 2005, Defendant 2: (a) required cancer cells to be organized in order to verify the necessity of the anti-mon system to the Plaintiff; (b) obtained a loan of spin block from the spin block borrowed by the Plaintiff; and (c) during the process of confirming the circumstances in order to confirm whether the cancer cells were not detected from the spin block borrowed by the Plaintiff, Defendant 2 attached the Plaintiff’s label to the body of the patient with cancer cells of another patient with cancer cells while making the Plaintiff’s body of the body of the Plaintiff’s tissue inspection; and (d) it was revealed that the Plaintiff diagnosed the Plaintiff as spinite cancer.

(8) The result of the final organizational examination of the species in the vicinity of the right side of the Plaintiff’s cutting-off in Seoul Special Hospital was a diversative change, such as the proliferation of divespary cells.

(d) Relevant knowledge;

The probability of the U.S. cancer must be determined by the organizational test, and if the diagnosis of the U.S. cancer is not supported by the organizational test, it cannot be confirmed that it is a U.S. cancer and the diagnosis of the degree of symptoms of U.S. cancer is conducted.

In the method of organizational inspection, there are methods such as sediment test, nuclear bio-explosion test (the method to be implemented by the Syves Hospital), climatic co-exption test, and climatic co-exption test, and it can be said that it depends on almost positive level in the case of nuclear bio-explosion test. However, it can be affected by the accuracy of the test by the inspector's typhthical test.

However, it is very difficult to change the diagnosis as long as there is an organization or organizational chain diagnosed by cancer, even though it is not discovered in the case of a group diagnosis, it is very difficult to change the diagnosis as long as there is an organization or organizational chain which has already been diagnosed by cancer.

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Determination on the school of the annual household of the defendant school foundation

According to the above facts of recognition, since Synasium and medical team in Synasium made the original unit of the Plaintiff’s organizational test, attached the Plaintiff’s label to the body of the body of the body of the patient with cancer cells, and read them, the actual condition of the Plaintiff’s right-side fluid, which was the Plaintiff’s synasium, was turned into synasium. Accordingly, the Plaintiff, who was the Plaintiff’s synasium, synasium and the Plaintiff’s synasium, synasium and the Plaintiff’s synasium, synasium and the Plaintiff’s synasium, synasium and the Plaintiff’s synasium, synasium and the Plaintiff’s synasium, were synasium and were syna

As to this, the above defendant's medical personnel transferred to the Seoul Central Hospital to undergo a separate inspection, such as the U.S. MaI test and the U.S. medical personnel transferred to the Seoul Central Hospital. Since the medical personnel at the Seoul Central Hospital did not properly read the above inspection results, the medical personnel at the Seoul Central Hospital did not conduct the instant operation. Thus, since there is no proximate causal relation between the above negligence of the 3rd Central Hospital and the instant operation caused by the negligence of the Seoul Central Hospital's Medical Personnel, it is argued that the Defendant's annual household did not bear the responsibility for this case. Accordingly, according to the above facts, the medical personnel at the Seoul Central Hospital did not bear the responsibility for this case because there is no proximate causal relation between the above negligence of the 3rd Central Hospital's medical personnel and the instant operation caused by the negligence of the Seoul Central Hospital's medical personnel at the 3rd Central Hospital. Accordingly, the medical personnel at the Seoul Central Hospital was trusted to perform the instant operation by trust in the organization examination results of the 3rd Central Hospital's medical personnel.

B. Determination as to Defendant 4

(1) The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff asserts that Defendant 4 caused the Plaintiff’s failure to slick the body of the body of the body of the Plaintiff and the body of the other patient, and neglected to change the body of the body of the body of the body of the Plaintiff. Furthermore, Defendant 4’s negligence, even though it should have been carefully determined on the result of the Plaintiff’s organizational inspection, was found that Defendant 4 caused the Plaintiff’s occurrence of the body of the Plaintiff’s body of the body of the body of the Plaintiff and the body of the other patient’s body of the body of the patient.

(2) Determination

As seen earlier, Defendant 4 tried to conduct an operation to cut off the Plaintiff’s right-hand fluid cancer, Defendant 4’s form of the Plaintiff’s right-hand fluid cancer and to cut off the Plaintiff’s right-hand fluid. However, Synas Hospital path and medical staff attached the Plaintiff’s label to another patient’s body with cancer cells by making the Plaintiff’s organizational body slickd, and determined that Defendant 4, who was an external doctor of Slive Slive Slive Slive Hospital, committed an error in the form of the Plaintiff’s right-hand fluid cancer based on the outcome of the examination; Defendant 4, who was a doctor outside Slive Hospital, tried to diagnose the Plaintiff’s right-hand fluid cancer, and to implement an operation to cut off the Plaintiff’s body. However, it is difficult to recognize that Defendant 4 was negligent in the Plaintiff’s organization and sliverology of the Plaintiff’s body, in view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the above facts:

In addition, there is no evidence to prove that the results of the protopy photographs taken by the Korean medical research institute and the protopym photographs taken by the stove hospital had different meanings, and it is difficult to see that the result of the organization inspection should be doubtful solely on the ground that the results of the protopy photographs are different simply. Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

C. Determination on Defendant Seoul National University Hospital and Defendant 2

(1) The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff was a member of the Seoul Alternative Hospital in order to obtain confirmation once again as to whether the form of the right bank is cancer or not. Thus, although the defendant 2, who is the doctor of the Seoul Alternative Hospital, who was requested to provide medical treatment from the plaintiff, has a duty to make a decision as to whether the form of the plaintiff's right bank is cancer by collecting a new tissue and conducting a reinspection separately from the inspection opinion of the defendant 4, he neglected this duty and performed the instant operation without any specific inspection. The plaintiff 4's result of the inspection was franchising only the defendant 4, and this failed to perform the duty of care for diagnosis and treatment required as an average doctor. Thus, the defendant 2 and the defendant Seoul National University Hospital, who is the employer of the above defendant 2, is liable for all damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the instant operation.

(2) Determination

In light of the following circumstances, Defendant 2 performed only the promotion of the Plaintiff on the day of the Plaintiff’s birth in Seoul Hospital, and decided to implement a climatic operation on the right side of the Plaintiff by reliance on the results of the climatic examination and diagnosis. Although Defendant 2 removed climatic organizations within 8 clocks of the Plaintiff’s right side, Defendant 2 presumed the climatic climatic climatic climatic climatic cliffic clific clific clific clific clific clific clific clific clific clific clific clific clific clific clific clific clific clific clific clific clific clific clific clific clific clific clific c.

3. Scope of liability for damages

(a) Actual income:

The plaintiff asserts that due to the negligence of the school juristic person of the defendant school caused a serious impediment to the function of the school system to be unable to work in addition to minor labor, and thus, 40% of the damage is liable to compensate for the damage therefrom. As such, due to the operation of this case, the plaintiff's health zone, part 1/4 of the right part of the part of the plaintiff's right part of the operation of this case, and the surveillance flag was cut off due to the operation of this case, and the head of the Hanyang University Seoul Hospital was left on the right part of the part of the plaintiff's right part, as seen above. According to the result of the court's physical appraisal entrusted to the head of the Hanyangyang University University Seoul Hospital, the plaintiff can be recognized the fact that the plaintiff appeals to the right part of the present, shoulder, arms, etc.

(b) Expenses for medical treatment;

The plaintiff asserted that the Saves hospital and Seoul Hospital spent a total of KRW 2,458,790 for medical expenses, such as surgery expenses, in connection with the instant surgery, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it.

(c) Future treatment costs;

In full view of the purport of the argument as a result of physical examination of the court's decision on the head of the Hanyang University Seoul Hospital, the method of re-building using an ordinary organization is used to solve the re-building problem, and the method requires double-recognization, then the method requires double-regnization, and 11,009,050 won, and 5,216,16,160 won, etc., total of 16,225,210 won, and 16,210 won, etc., can be recognized. However, since there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff paid the above operation expenses before the conclusion of the argument in this case, each of the above operation expenses is not considered to have been disbursed on March 26, 2008, but it is deemed to have been disbursed on March 26, 2008, but if the present medical accident at the time of this case was calculated by deducting the intermediate interest under the Matrin Law, it shall be 14,584,58 won.

(d) Condolence money;

(1) Reasons for taking into account: The Plaintiff’s age, family relationship, background and result of the instant case, the Plaintiff’s present status, and various circumstances revealed in the instant argument.

(b) Amount determined: 25,000,000 won;

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the annual household of the defendant school is obligated to pay damages to the plaintiff at the rate of 39,58,458 won (the medical expenses 14,584,458 won + the consolation money 25,000,000 won) and damages from December 2, 2005, which is the date of the instant operation, to the above defendant from April 8, 2008, the amount of 5% per annum under the Civil Act until April 8, 2008, and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment. Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the annual household of the defendant school of the defendant school is justified within the extent of the above recognition, and the remaining claims against the plaintiff against the other defendants are without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Jin-ro (Presiding Judge)