[1] Whether the symptoms can be presumed as medical negligence in a case where there are symptoms causing severe results to a patient during or after an operation, and where indirect facts that cannot be deemed as having any other reason than medical negligence are proven with respect to the occurrence of symptoms, if they are difficult to view that there are other reasons than medical negligence (affirmative)

[2] The case holding that the judgment below which did not recognize the medical personnel's negligence in the medical personnel's negligence was erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles in a case where: (a) where: (b) the medical personnel of Gap hospital discovered a serious organ and tissue from the ductal ductal ductal surgery to Eul while performing the ductal ductal ductal ductal ductal surgery; (c) the ductal ductal ductal ductal ductal ductal ductal ductal dual ductal duc duc duc duc duc duc duc ma

[1] In a case where a doctor’s medical practice becomes a tort in the course of a surgery, there should be causation between negligence in medical practice and damage. The burden of proof is borne by the patient. However, medical practice is not an expert in a field requiring high level of expertise, and it is extremely difficult to clarify whether there was a causal link between the doctor’s breach of duty of care and the loss. Thus, if indirect facts exist in the event of symptoms causing severe damage to the patient after an operation, it can be presumed that such symptoms are based on medical negligence if it is proved that there are other causes than medical negligence in the event of symptoms causing serious damage to the patient after an operation.

[2] In a case where: (a) the medical personnel at Gap hospital was performing the surgery at the time when he was performing the surgery at the time of the surgery at the time of the surgery at the time of the surgery at the time of the surgery at the time of the surgery at the time of the surgery at the time of the surgery at the time of the surgery at the time of the surgery at the time of the surgery at the time of the surgery at the time of the opening of the surgery at the time of the surgery at the time of the surgery at the time of the surgery at the time of the surgery at the time of the opening of the mouth; (b) the patient at the time of the surgery at the time of the surgery at the time of the surgery at the time of the entrance at the time of the surgery at the time of the entrance to the patient Eul; (c) the patient at the time of the surgery at the time of the surgery at the time of the opening of the mouth; (d) the patient at the time of the surgery at the time of the surgery at the time of the entrance; and (d) the patient at the time of the surgery at the time of the surgery at the time of the surgery at the time of the surgery, there were no errors.

[1] Article 750 of the Civil Act, Article 202 of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Article 750 of the Civil Act, Article 202 of the Civil Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 9Da66328 delivered on July 7, 2000 (Gong2000Ha, 1878) Supreme Court Decision 2002Da45185 Delivered on October 28, 2004 (Gong2004Ha, 1929) Supreme Court Decision 2005Da5867 Delivered on May 31, 2007 (Gong2007Ha, 949)

Plaintiff (Attorney Seo Young-gu et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant School Foundation (Law Firm LLC, Attorneys Kim Man-ok et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2009Na105064 decided June 17, 2010

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. First, we examine the medical malpractice of the Defendant Hospital.

A. In a case where a doctor’s medical practice becomes a tort due to a breach of duty of care in the process, there should be causation between negligence in medical practice and damage. The burden of proof is borne by the patient. However, since the medical practice is an area requiring highly professional knowledge and it is extremely difficult to find out whether there was a violation of duty of care in the process of medical practice or whether there was causation between the breach of duty of care and the occurrence of damage, it can be presumed that such symptoms are based on medical negligence if indirect facts are proved to prove that there are other causes than medical negligence in the course of surgery where there were symptoms causing a serious result to the patient after surgery (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da6328, Jul. 7, 2000).

B. Review of the reasoning of the lower judgment and the evidence duly admitted by the lower court reveals the following facts.

(1) On August 8, 2007, when ○○ University’s affiliated △△ Hospital (hereinafter “Defendant Hospital”) was discovered, the Plaintiff, who had received the above-mentioned and factory marology prior to approximately 20 years ago, was hospitalized in order to undergo wing-out surgery at ○○ University’s affiliated hospital (hereinafter “Defendant Hospital”).

(2) On August 9, 2007, the non-party, who is a medical specialist outside the Defendant Hospital, started laging the Plaintiff by laging the lag with lag. The non-party discovered that the laging to the lower bottom of the lag, which is the part of the operation, the lag (the lag; the part of the lag, the lag; the lag; the lag, etc.) and the lag with the Plaintiff.

(3) However, the Nonparty, however, did not convert into a laver, did not change into a laver, she spaceded with an organ that was born through a laver and changed into a laver. At around 18:30, the cause and condition of her blood transfusion occurred, and it was impossible to verify the cause and condition of her blood transfusion, making it impossible to do so.

(4) After the opening, the Nonparty discovered that there was a serious stimule in the middle of the Plaintiff’s right-hand kidne, but the Nonparty performed an stimule dneying dnephomy in the middle of kidney, but completed the operation at around 21:10.

(5) The Plaintiff’s wing type was found to be a mere chronic reticulsis as a result of an organizational examination conducted after the said operation. The Plaintiff’s function of expanding the left-hand side while the right-hand extension has been lost is also reduced by approximately 20 to 30%.

(6) In the case of a patient with past history in which the operation of the upper part was conducted, it was considered that it was not subject to ductal rection in the past. In recent years, due to the development of the operating body, there are many opinions that it can be subject to an operation according to the operator's experience and ability to cope with the merger certificate. However, it is true that it is safe to exclude him from ductal rection subject to duction by duction on the ground that the transition to duction and the duction to duction occur more frequently. During the implementation of duction by duction, the duction should be converted into duction if it is difficult to divide the exact location of the upper part of the duction, etc. into duction.

(7) It is an important merger that damages the important blood sources of the pyromatic surgery during the pyromatic surgery is not shaking about 0.1% of the pyromatic surgery. It is known that the experience and knowledge of surgery doctors are important to prevent damage to the pyromatic surgery, including, but not limited to, the degree of damage to the important blood sources of the pyromatic surgery, and there are statistics with little experience in the case of the pyromatic surgery, including, but not limited to, statistics with little experience.

(8) Generally, since the gate is ordinarily in the mouth and is in the kidney mouth, the gate and kidney are not only divided into autopsy studies, but also at a distance from the location. However, it may be difficult for a patient who has been performing a ductal operation to have long-term classification due to a change in the location of the long-term location or a ductal structure, etc. However, there was no small report that kidne caused damage to kidne during the ducing process by ductal diameter.

C. Examining the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the medical personnel at Defendant Hospital found that the Plaintiff’s exploitation was serious in the early stage of the surgery by laparing. ① If the Plaintiff’s long-term and tissue exploitation had been judged to the extent that it was difficult to understand the medical structure of laparing, it can be deemed that the Plaintiff continued operation by laparing surgery by laparing the laparing, thereby causing damage to the lavercing and furthering surgery by negligence, and ② if laparing surgery by lavercing was in a situation where lavercing surgery was possible, it is reasonable to consider that the important blood damage from lavercing occurring in the laparing surgery by lavercing surgery was not a subjective factor, such as lavercing surgery itself, rather than an objective factor accompanying the surgery itself, and that there was no excessive damage to the Plaintiff’s lavercing surgery by negligence in the process of lavercing surgery, and that it did not cause damage to the Plaintiff’s lavercing surgery.

Nevertheless, the court below rejected the plaintiff's claim on the ground that there is a lack of evidence to acknowledge the negligence of the medical staff of the defendant hospital, which is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the proof of negligence in the medical lawsuit.

2. Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the lower judgment is reversed, and 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 Il-young (Presiding Justice)