In a case where Party A was hospitalized at the hospital B due to hepatitis, etc., was hospitalized at the hospital C, and died during the surgery after the surgery, and Party B’s mother claimed damages against Party B, who is an operator of the hospital B, the case holding that Party A was liable to suffer from mental pain by recognizing Party B’s symptoms as the negligence of the Plaintiff’s diagnosis and treatment, on the ground that Party A did not take any additional measures, and thereby did not take any additional measures.

In a case where Gap was hospitalized at Eul hospital due to catitis, and died during the surgery at Byung hospital, and the mother of Byung was diagnosed at Eul hospital, and the mother of Byung was in charge of the operation, and sought compensation for damages against catho, who was the operator of Eul hospital, the case holding that Gap was unable to accept the causal relationship between Gap's death and cathoe's injury on the ground that, considering the fact that Eul's organizational examination conducted at Eul hospital and the cat examination conducted at the non-permanent cells was observed and the cat examination conducted at the non-permanent cells was suspected of breeding, it was difficult to recognize that Gap was in charge of the above cathoe's occupational negligence, even though Eul was at least a duty to care to transfer cathere to the higher level, without taking any additional measures, due to the negligence of the above cathoe's diagnosis and treatment, and thus, Gap could not be seen to have been suffered from the above cathoe's mental negligence, and even if the above catume was conducted after the diagnosis at the time.

Articles 750, 751, and 756 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff and the deceased Nonparty’s lawsuit taking over the lawsuit (Attorney Shin Il-hwan, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and one other (Law Firm Zoo, Attorneys Cho Won-won et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

August 30, 2016

1. The Defendants jointly pay to the Plaintiff 25,00,000 won with 5% interest per annum from June 16, 2016 to September 27, 2016, and 15% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. 3/5 of the costs of lawsuit is assessed against the Plaintiff, and the remainder is assessed against the Defendants.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The defendants jointly pay to the plaintiff 201,438,616 won with 15% interest per annum from the day following the day of service of a copy of the application for modification of the purport and cause of the claim of this case to the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

A. Status of the parties

1) On September 3, 2012, the deceased Nonparty (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) first ○○ Hospital located in Seo-gu Incheon Metropolitan Government ( Address 1 omitted) and received hospital treatment or outpatient treatment from the above hospital due to an unidentified’s unknown infection, etc. from the above hospital until September 13, 2013. Around September 26, 2013, △△△△△△ Hospital located in the Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter referred to as “△△△ Hospital”) was diagnosed by the △△△△△△ Hospital located in the Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government ( Address 2 omitted) and died of the after surgery on April 26, 2015, and the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff”) who is the her mother.

2) Defendant 1 is a person operating the above ○○ Hospital (hereinafter “Defendant hospital”). Defendant 2 is a person in charge of diagnosis and treatment of the Deceased from March 2013, with respect to the extension and doctor in the hospital employed by the Defendant hospital.

B. Progress of treatment at the Defendant Hospital and the death of the Deceased

1) On September 3, 2012, the Deceased complained of symptoms, such as fire extinguishing, at the first place at the Defendant Hospital. The Defendant Hospital’s medical personnel determined that the Defendant Hospital was suspected of false infection by conducting the clothes CT test and blood test on the day of the visit, and recommended the Deceased to be hospitalized, but the Deceased refused to be hospitalized.

2) On March 7, 2013, the Deceased complained of the following symptoms by not later than September 13, 2013, by visiting the Defendant Hospital again, and accordingly, Defendant 2 took part in the clothes CT test and the above internal test. The results are as follows.

본문내 포함된 표 일자 망인이 호소한 증상 피고 2의 처치 및 결과 3. 7. 식후에 소화가 되지 않고, 신물이 올라오고 목이 타는 느낌이 있음. 등 윗배로 가스가 차며, 대변은 하루 한 번 묽게 봄 위 내시경: 출혈을 동반한 위궤양 의심 위 조직검사: 비정형 세포 관찰 혈액검사: 혈색소 수치 정상 3. 21. 식후 가스 차고, 방귀 자주 뀜 위 내시경: 미란성 위염 위 조직검사: 만성 위염 3. 28. 가스 차는 것이 좋아짐. 가끔 가스 차고 방귀 조금 나옴 5. 10. 트림이 나고 가스 참. 소화 잘됨 5. 31. 트림이 나고 신물이 올라옴. 과식하면 가스 차고 방귀 많이 나옴 6. 26.~7. 4.(입원) 일주일 전부터 설사 지속됨. 하루 10여 회 이상 설사함 복부 CT 검사: 위 기저에서 두꺼운 위벽 확인(종양 의심) 위 내시경: 미란성 위염 대장 내시경 위 조직검사: 만성 미란성 위염 혈액 검사: 혈색소 수치 8.8~11.2gm/dL (정상 수치: 13.0~17.5gm/dL) 7. 9. 묽은 변을 하루 2~3번 봄. 식사 잘함 7. 11. 설사가 줄줄 나옴. 가스가 차고 방귀 나옴 7. 16. 5일째 대변이 멈춘 상태임 8. 19. 한동안 약 중단함. 다른 음식 먹은 이후 어제부터 다시 설사함. 설사가 완전 물처럼 나옴 9. 13. 약 복용하면서 설사 없음. 약 중단한 뒤 2주 정도 되어 다시 설사함. 가스 차는 느낌 있음 대학병원 진료 권유

3) On September 26, 2013, the Deceased was admitted to Magsan Hospital. On the day of the internal inspection, it was doubtful that the result of the internal inspection was about 4 type Magmann’s bankruptcy, and that the result of the organizational inspection conducted on the day of the internal inspection was also confirmed as Magman’s bankruptcy.

4) On October 8, 2013, the Deceased died on April 26, 2015 while he/she received a partial bruptive brue at Magsung Hospital and continued treatment at the above hospital.

(c) Relevant medical knowledge;

1) According to the data of the U.S. Association, the survival rate for each weapon of the above cancer is 44-90% for the above cancer (including the cryptite cancer) based on the survival rate of 5 years, 29% for the above cancer 2, 9-15% for the above cancer 3, and 4% for the above cancer 4%.

2) Gorrmann is divided into one to four categories by the classification method created by Bogrmann. Among them, the four types can only be cut off, melted, or broken down, unlike other types that cause damage to a melter, it is difficult to confirm internal and organizationality of cancer cells.

[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the result of the commission of appraisal of the records to the head of the △△△△ University affiliated to the department of the department of the department of the department of the department of the department of the department, the result of the commission

2. Occurrence and scope of liability for damages;

A. The parties' assertion

1) The plaintiff's assertion

Since the Deceased complained of symptoms, such as fire extinguishing and snow extinguishing, etc. after the Deceased was admitted to the Defendant Hospital, the Defendant 2 was not merely a medical treatment, but rather a suspected and doubtful treatment. As Defendant 2 was unable to detect the above cancer from time to time, the Deceased was deprived of the opportunity to receive medical treatment and died, Defendant 2 was liable for tort under Article 750 of the Civil Act. Defendant 1 is liable to compensate for property damage (daily income, funeral expenses) and mental damage suffered by the Deceased under the employer’s responsibility under Article 756 of the Civil Act, and mental damage suffered by the Plaintiff.

2) The defendant's assertion

A) In full view of the fact that Bohman 4 type Maz. was not easily discovered in an internal or organizational test, it cannot be said that Defendant 2 was negligent in failing to discover the deceased’s Maz.

B) Even if negligence is recognized against Defendant 2, according to the following: (a) in the case of 4-type Madam cancer, the condition of the deceased is not good; and (b) the direct cause of the death of the deceased is the outbreak of Madam caused by excessive noise and smoking; (c) there is no causation between Defendant 2’s negligence and the death of the deceased.

B. Determination on Defendant 2’s negligence

1) In performing medical acts such as diagnosis and treatment, a doctor 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 patient’s nature of the duties of managing the patient’s life, body, and health. Such duty of care is based on the level of medical practice performed in the clinical medical field, such as a medical institution, at the time of performing the medical act. Since the level of medical care is generally known to, and recognized by, ordinary doctors at the time of performing the medical act, the level of medical care should be determined at a normative level in consideration of the environment and conditions of medical treatment, the peculiarity of the medical act, etc. Furthermore, diagnosis is an important medical starting point in identifying whether the disease is disease and identifying its kind, nature, and degree of progress. Thus, in determining the existence of negligence in the diagnosis, even if it is impossible to conduct the complete diagnosis in the process, it should be determined that the doctor is able to have exercised the duty of care within the range of diagnosis at least the level of practice in the clinical medical field, with careful and accurate diagnosis results (see Supreme Court Decision 20130.

2) Accordingly, in the instant case, it is difficult to confirm the internal or organizational level of the health team and Bohman 4 Mad, as seen earlier. However, the following circumstances revealed from the aforementioned basic facts and the aforementioned evidence, namely, ① more than a cell called non-permanent cell was observed as a result of the organizational examination conducted around March 7, 2013; ② the lave CT test conducted around June 2013 showed that the lave wall was confirmed from the above lave, and the lave was suspected of lave. ③ Moreover, the blood examination conducted around June 2013 conducted around 201; ③ the blood examination conducted around 13.0-1.2 g/L on the deceased’s blood size was conducted or conducted considerably below 13.0-17.5 g/L on the condition that the deceased’s lave was found to have violated the above lave’s duty of care, and thus, Defendant 2 was in need to verify the causes of laveing the deceased’s symptoms.

C. Determination on the causal relationship between Defendant 2’s negligence and the deceased’s death

Since the progress rate of the above cancer is diverse, it is difficult to presume the condition of around June 2013, which was conducted by the deceased, under the influence of around September 26, 2013 when he was diagnosed Magsan Hospital. However, in light of the above basic facts and the following circumstances acknowledged from the aforementioned evidence, it cannot be ruled out that the possibility that the above cancer had already occurred around June 26, 2013 when the deceased was hospitalized in the Defendant Hospital, and (2) in the case of Bogman 4 type cancer, the remaining life rate of the patient of the end cancer is extremely low, and thus, it is difficult to recognize the causal relationship between the death of the deceased and the above negligence of the deceased, even if the deceased commenced treatment after receiving the diagnosis on or around June 2013.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for damages against the plaintiff's property damage premised on the above causation cannot be accepted.

D. The defendants' obligation to pay consolation money occurs.

However, without the above negligence by Defendant 2, the deceased could receive as soon as possible the treatment of the above cancer, and further, there was room for the extension of the life period through the treatment. The defendant 2 lost the opportunity to view the treatment due to the above negligence, and it is obvious in light of the empirical rule that the deceased and his mother would have suffered mental pain. Thus, the Defendants are obliged to do so in money.

Furthermore, in full view of all the circumstances revealed in the proceedings of the instant case, such as health team, the deceased and the Plaintiff’s age, occupation, status, and the process and consequence of the instant medical treatment, the deceased’s condition and possibility of recovery, as to the amount of consolation money that the Defendants are liable to compensate the deceased and the Plaintiff, it is reasonable to determine the amount of consolation money as KRW 20,000,000 to the deceased, and KRW 5,00,000 to the Plaintiff, and the deceased’s consolation money was the entire inheritance of

Therefore, the Defendants are jointly obligated to jointly pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 25,00,000 as well as damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act until September 27, 2016, which is the date of the adjudication of this case, where it is deemed reasonable for the Defendants to dispute about the existence and scope of the obligation to perform as to the claims of this case from June 16, 2016, following the delivery date of a copy of the application for modification of the purport of this case and the cause of the claim, as sought by the Plaintiff.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Red Dong (Presiding Judge)