beta
Text
1. The judgment of the first instance, including the plaintiffs' claims expanded and reduced in this court, shall be modified as follows.
Reasons
1. Grounds for the court’s explanation on this part of the facts based on the judgment of the court of first instance
B. Paragraph 1 of this Article provides that “12:27” shall be construed as “12:2,” and “14:26” as “14:40, the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is the same as that of Paragraph 1 of this Article, and thus, it shall be cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Determination
A. Since the plaintiffs' assertion was negligent in performing the following medical care, and thereby, the plaintiff A was injured by obsive brain damage, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff A and the other plaintiffs in their family relations due to the negligence of the medical personnel in the defendant hospital as the employer of the medical personnel in the defendant hospital.
1) On April 28, 2012, when Plaintiff A was in a critical condition at the time of the emergency medical center of the Defendant Hospital on April 28, 2012, the medical personnel at the Defendant Hospital was not in a timely and adequate manner to observe and take measures necessary to recover the Plaintiff’s respiratory and oxygen oxygen. The negligence of the medical personnel at the Defendant Hospital caused continuous gas exchange disorder, misappropriation, and low oxygen pulmonary brain damage to Plaintiff A. 2) under the condition that Plaintiff A’s oxygen oxygen level was attached to the patient’s clinic related to the treatment of the Plaintiff on May 18, 2012, the medical personnel at the Defendant Hospital was measured at very low rate of 11:00 on May 11, 2012, and around 13:00 on 62% on the part of the Plaintiff hospital, but the medical personnel at the Defendant Hospital did not take measures to reduce the Plaintiff’s pulmonary condition, including artificial pulmonary resuscitation, thereby preventing the Plaintiff’s pulmonary resuscitation.
In addition, the medical personnel of the defendant hospital did not properly grasp the location of the heart while performing cardiopulmonary resuscitation with the plaintiff A, so the medical personnel of the defendant hospital was treated on the wrong side.
The defendant hospital.