[1] Whether the causal relationship between the medical negligence and the result is presumed in a case where the injured party proves that the act of medical negligence was committed on the part of the injured party and that the cause other than the medical practice could not be established on the part of the injured party (affirmative)

[2] Determination of discretion and negligence in selecting doctor's method of treatment

[3] Time of birth of a person under the Civil Act (=the time when the baby was entirely exposed from the mother's body)

[4] The case holding that it is reasonable to consider the legal assessment of the damage of a newborn baby who died in the course of delivery as well as the assessment of the consolation money of the parent of the fetus due to medical malpractice in calculation of the consolation money of the parent of the fetus who died in the course of delivery

[1] In order to be held liable for tort due to breach of the duty of care or non-performance of a medical act, the existence of causation between the violation of the duty of care, the occurrence of damages, and the violation of the duty of care and the occurrence of damages should be premised on the existence of medical act. However, the medical procedure is an area where highly specialized knowledge is required, and only a doctor can be aware unless the patient himself/herself becomes aware of part of it, and the medical procedure to achieve the result of treatment depends on his/her own discretion. Thus, it is extremely difficult for the patient to prove that the direct cause of damages is due to medical negligence because it cannot be clearly revealed that the patient is an ordinary person who is not a specialist, and it is extremely difficult for the patient to prove that the causal relationship between the patient's violation of the duty of care and the occurrence of damages is medically perfect in the medical procedure. Therefore, if the patient proves the act based on the result and the series of medical acts at the victim's own discretion, and unless it proves that there was a defect in the medical procedure due to the result that the patient could not be any other reason attributable to his/her negligence.

[2] In providing medical treatment, a doctor may choose the method of medical treatment deemed appropriate among the patient's situation, the level of medical care at the time, and several measures that may be considered based on his/her professional knowledge and experience. Unless it goes beyond the reasonable scope, one of them shall not be deemed to have been justified and any other measure shall not be deemed to have been negligent.

[3] In order to protect the legal protection of the fetus, barring cases where a person is deemed to have already been born with special provisions individually, such as a claim for damages based on an unlawful act (Article 762 of the Civil Act), an inheritance of property (Article 1000(3) of the Civil Act), etc., it is reasonable to interpret the Civil Act based on the time when the fetus is entirely exposed from the mother

[4] The case holding that it is reasonable to consider the legal assessment of the damage of the newborn baby who died in the course of delivery as well as the assessment of the consolation money of the parent of the fetus due to medical malpractice, although it is not possible to recognize the legal capacity of the fetus as a human being

[1] Article 750 of the Civil Act / [2] Article 750 of the Civil Act / [3] Articles 3, 762, and 100 (3) of the Civil Act / [4] Articles 3, 750, and 751 of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 9Da48245 delivered on September 8, 200 (Gong2000Ha, 2074) Supreme Court Decision 2001Da19486 Delivered on August 27, 2002 (Gong2002Ha, 2284) Supreme Court Decision 2002Da3822 Delivered on January 24, 2003 (Gong2003Sang, 705) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 82Do3199 Delivered on June 12, 1984 (Gong1984, 1320), Supreme Court Decision 91Da23707 delivered on May 12, 199 (Gong192, 1931), Supreme Court Decision 2002Da3822 Delivered on June 16, 196 (Gong1936Da39794 delivered on June 36, 197).

Plaintiff 1 and one other (Attorney Lee Jong-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and one other (Attorney Jeon Byung-nam, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2004Gahap11880 decided May 11, 2006

March 8, 2007

1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against Plaintiff 1, which ordered payment below, shall be revoked.

The Defendants shall pay to each of the plaintiffs 1 5,00,000 won with 5% interest per annum from July 14, 2004 to March 15, 2007 and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

2. Upon the preliminary claim added at the trial, the Defendants pay to each of the plaintiffs 15,00,000 won with 5% per annum from July 14, 2004 to March 15, 2007 and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

3. All remaining appeals by Plaintiff 1, Plaintiff 2’s appeal, and Plaintiffs’ remaining preliminary claims are dismissed.

4. The total costs of the lawsuit are three-minutes, and the two-minutes are assessed against the plaintiffs, and the remainder are assessed against the defendants.

5. The portion of the money under paragraph 1 and paragraph 2 of this Article may be provisionally executed.

1. Purport of claim

The defendants jointly and severally paid 141,845,107 won, 108,854,107 won, and 108,854,107 won to plaintiff 2, and each of the above amounts to defendant 1, from July 14, 2004 to September 1, 2004, and from July 14, 2004 to September 2, 2004, respectively, 5% per annum from July 14, 2004 to September 2, 2004, and 20% per annum from the next day to September 2, 204 (the plaintiff initially claimed 30,000,000 won, and 20,000,000 won to plaintiff 1 as compensation for the remainder of the conjunctive property claim from the court of first instance as compensation for damages).

2. Purport of appeal

The part against the plaintiffs falling under the part of the first instance judgment against which payment is ordered under the order, shall be revoked, and the defendants shall jointly and severally pay to the plaintiffs 1 16,845,107 won, 88,854,107 won, and 5% per annum from July 14, 2004 to March 15, 2007, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

1. Basic facts

The following facts may be acknowledged based on Gap evidence 3, Gap evidence 9-1 through 4, Gap evidence 10, 11, and 12-1, 2, Gap evidence 13-1, 3 through 8, 10, 16-22, and 24, and the result of the first instance court's entrustment of physical examination of the director of the hospital affiliated with the first instance court, and the result of the first instance court's entrustment of physical examination of the director of the hospital affiliated with the university affiliated with the university affiliated with the university affiliated with the foreign university affiliated with the foreign university, and the whole purport of the pleadings.

(a) Status of a party;

(1) Plaintiff 1 is a pregnant woman who is divided into the instant fetus, and Plaintiff 2 is the husband of Plaintiff 1 and the father of the said fetus.

(2) Defendant 1 is a medical specialist affiliated (name 1 omitted) with (name 1 omitted) university’s department affiliated with (name 1 omitted) university’s department affiliated with (name 1 omitted), and Defendant 1 is an employer of Defendant 1, who establishes and operates the above (name 1 omitted) hospital.

B. Medical treatment of Plaintiff 1’s internal members and Defendant Hospital

(1) On November 13, 2003, Plaintiff 1 was diagnosed at the hospital (name 2 omitted) with 3 days of pregnancy, and was regularly diagnosed at the hospital. On April 14, 2004, the 27th anniversary of pregnancy, Defendant 1, who was introduced by Nonparty 1 from the former father and the former father and the non-party 1, was under a special medical examination at the Defendant hospital, and was under a medical examination at the Defendant hospital by 37 weeks of pregnancy, and thereafter, it was the opinion that the mother and the fetus were health of both the mother and the fetus.

(2) On July 13, 2004, around 2004, Plaintiff 1 was hospitalized in Defendant Hospital for the following guidance only: (a) around 22:00 on the same day, as a result of conducting a basic inspection, such as earthquake-proof, rain-proof, and ultra-frequency inspection in the atmosphere room; (b) the pressure in the womb was closed; (c) the pressure in the womb was 10-20 meters mH; and (d) the anticipated weight of the fetus was 3.18km.

(3) On July 14, 2004, at around 00:0, the medical personnel of the Defendant hospital: (a) putting the cleep (a process before the beginning of the delivery of the womb) into a cleep (the process in which the cleep scenery was unfured); (b) checking the level of the cleep E2:0; (c) making the Plaintiff 1 take the left-hand cleep; (d) observed the progress after having the Plaintiff 1 take the cleep; (c) even though the cleep was 120-160 times and/or click at around 03:0, the 120-160 purine click; (d) the click click malm of the click at around 08:30, the 1200 purine click m of the click click; and (d) the click m of the m of the me.

(4) At around 19:40, the medical professionals at Defendant Hospital showed the reduction of 2-3-year heart hearts of the fetus in the electronic monitoring device. At around 19:40, Plaintiff 1 had Plaintiff 1 take the left-hand side, and there were normal opinions. At around 20:0, the number of the fetus heart was opened to the extent of 4-5cm, and the womb was lost to 70% (the thickness of the landscape, which is about 2 cm at normal time, was 4-5cm, and the thickness of the landscape, which is about 20cm at normal time, was spath like a paper). At around 21:30, the number of the fetus was 5-6cm at around 20,00, and the number of the fetus was reduced to 10-1-281-280 minutes at the early time, and the number was reduced to 10-1-281-20 minutes at the early time.

(c)measures after delivery and delivery;

(1) 피고 1은 22:30경 원고 1을 분만대로 옮기도록 한 후 의료진에게 배큠(Vaccum : 아기 머리를 잡아당겨 꺼내주는 특수한 의료기구)을 준비하도록 지시하고 레지던트 3년차인 소외 2에게 푸싱(Pushing)을 시도하도록 지시하여 위 소외 2는 원고 1의 배를 누르기 시작하였다.

(2) 피고 1은 태아곤란증을 의심하고 배큠을 이용한 흡입분만을 수회 시도한 끝에 23:55경 태아를 분만하였다.

(3) On July 15, 2004, when a child in the atmosphere and a doctor were inserted and a heart in the engine, and around 00:03 on July 15, 2004, when a fetus was transferred to a newborn baby room, the doctor of the relevant baby was still still still dead on July 14, 2005 because the situation was not recovered.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

The plaintiffs (1) participated in the delivery in a state of drinking, and (2) the defendant 1 moved to the delivery to the delivery to the delivery to the delivery to the delivery to the delivery to the delivery to the delivery to the delivery to the delivery to the delivery to the delivery to the delivery to the plaintiff 1, and the plaintiff 2 was not limited to pressureing the delivery to the delivery to the plaintiff 1, and the plaintiff 1 was carried out by the plaintiff 1 and the plaintiff 1's early early payment to the above plaintiff 1, and (3) the intake to the delivery to the delivery to the second time to the delivery to the third to 4 times, although the defendant 1 moved to the plaintiff 1 to the delivery to the delivery to the delivery to the plaintiff 22:30 to 23:55, the plaintiff 1 did not compensate the plaintiff 1 for the loss to the delivery to the delivery to the delivery to the plaintiff 1, and therefore, the plaintiff 1 did not have any responsibility to compensate for the loss to the plaintiff 1 at the time of the delivery to the delivery to the delivery to the defendant 1.

B. The defendants' assertion

The Defendants asserted that (1) from July 14, 2004, Defendant 1 pressured Plaintiff 1’s vessel from around 22:30, 2004; (2) it was generally permissible pressure to help Plaintiff 1 quickly, and (2) Defendant 1 attempted to inhale the fetus from around 23:30,00 to the end of 3:4:0 p.m., Defendant 1’s self-c.i., Plaintiff 1’s c.m. to the end of 3-4:3 p.m., and the Plaintiff 1’s c.m. to the end of 4:0 p.m., Defendant 1’s c.m., the fetus was completely opened, and the degree of the fetus was +1, and Defendant 1’s c.m. to prepare for an emergency surgery, and thus, Defendant 1 could not seek a safe and smooth solution of the fetus by using an auxiliary method, such as inhaled medicine.

3. Judgment by issue

A. Existence of liability for damages

(1) Facts of recognition

In full view of the overall purport of the arguments cited above, the following facts can be acknowledged in relation to the status of the fetus and the mother of the instant case and the measures taken by the Defendant hospital and the medical knowledge related to the measures taken by the Defendant hospital during the delivery of the instant

(A) the status of the fetus and the mother in the course of delivery, and the measures of the Defendant hospital;

1) Around 18:00 on July 14, 2004, Defendant 1 drank 2 illness at a meeting with the professor, and began with the house after contact with the medical staff of 22:00 hospital and arrived at the Defendant Hospital around 22:10.

2) At around 22:30 on July 14, 2004, when Plaintiff 1 moved to a minute according to Defendant 1’s instruction, the Gimans Landscape 6-7cm, 80% of the gym in the gym in the gym in the gymssium, 110-180 times in the gym in the gym of the fetus, 110-180 times in the gym in the gym of the fetus, and 30-40m in the gym in the medical record as to the progress of each time period thereafter.

3) After moving to delivery, Defendant 1 instructed the above non-party 2 to take a phishing (Pusing), and the above non-party 2 began to take the part of Plaintiff 1. At around 23:00, Defendant 1 viewed that the fetus heart is continuously decreasing, and requested Defendant 1 to contact with the baby doctor and wait for the delivery room. At around 23:10, Defendant 1 continued to take the phishing at around 23:20.

-- From 10-120 up to 80 up to 90 up to 90 up to 90 up to 110 up to 110 up to 23 up to 23:20 up to 110 up to 110 up to 23:10 up to 23:20 up to 110 up to 110 up to 23:10 up to 23 up to 23:10 up to 110 up to 110 up to 110 up to 23:30 up to 90 up to 110 up to 23:20 up to 90 up to 90 up to 10 up to 23:30 up to 23:30 up to 23:30 up to 10 up to 10 up to 23:10 up to 160 up to 70 up to 23:40 up to - 78 up to -

4) 23:30경 분만 제2기에 접어들었는데, 위 표와 같이 태아심박동수가 60~70회/분으로 측정되어 피고 1은 태아곤란증을 의심하고 배큠을 이용한 흡입분만을 수회 시도한 끝에 23:55경 태아를 분만하였다.

5) Although the fetus was 3.10 km at the time of delivery as a female, the fetus did not put the Apgar score of the fetus at 0,000 points for one minute, but showed luxic opinions on the telegraph, and there was no luxic impulse, and even in spite of the measures for recovery of children and doctors waiting in the atmosphere, the fetus was still still still still still at the time of delivery.

6) According to the result of the autopsy and appraisal of the fetus, the private person of the fetus was found to have a fluorite pain. The result of the outer test (in the outer test), a wide range of the two sides, both sides and the rear side of the two parts were formed, and the upper part was fx6cm in the original form formed within a range of 6xc meters from the center of the two governments, the upper part was 1.2 cm in length from the upper part, the upper part was 2 cm in length (1.2 cm, 0.3 cm in length) and two parts (2 cm in the upper part), the upper part was fluorite in the upper part, the upper part was fluorite in the upper part, and the upper part was fluorite in the upper part of the two parts, and the upper part was fluorite in the upper part and the upper part of the two upper part were fluorite in the upper part of the two upper part, and the upper part was fluorted in both upper part and the upper part.

7) Before an embryo’s delivery, Plaintiff 1, who was implementing the National Federation’s musical adaptation, suffered an oxygen fever after a delivery of 4 degrees of snife in the process of performing only the nitrogen content using only the inhaled solution.

(b) The relevant medical knowledge;

(i) Materns;

The delivery period is largely divided into 1, 2, and 3 parts. The first part of the delivery period is from the date of the delivery to the completion of the delivery of the baby and the fetus, and the first part of the part is from the date of the delivery to the completion of the delivery of the baby and the fetus. The second part of the delivery period is from the date of the delivery to the completion of the delivery of the baby and the fetus. The second part of the part is the period from the day of the delivery to the completion of the delivery of the baby and the fetus.

The average time of the first period of delivery is 8 hours in the early childbirth, 5 hours in the light acid, and there may be significant differences for each individual. The first period is ① The state of the womb, ② the internal diagnosis to confirm the mouth or location of the fetus, ② the vicence test of the pregnant woman, ③ the gold and beer supply, ④ the supply of gold and beer, ⑤ the confirmation of light function and the number of the fetus hearts regularly, and the pressure and inhaled minutes in the second period of common part are attempted.

(ii) an unborn eggs (dianois).

A series of obstacles caused by the lack of oxygen among the adaptation processes from the infection to the establishment of the pulmonary nursing after birth in the womb is considered as a household affairs. The family affairs of the fetus in the fetus are embryonicia, the family affairs of the fetus in the after birth are newbornia, as "onatyia", and all these affairs are the child's home affairs after birth.

In this process, the fluort egg is constantly a situation in which the fetus in the womb may continuously cause a oxygen and oxygen, and there is a low pressure, low oxygen symptoms due to the pregnant woman's side among the causes, and there is a circular disorder, the brutosis, the fluoral hemosis, and the crutosis due to the fluoral side, etc., and there are fetus infection, an empty blood transfusion, blood transfusion, and medicines due to the fetus's side, and there are excessive fluoral escape, etc.

Therefore, during the process of delivery, it is necessary to carefully observe the physical condition of the fetus and the degree of the reduction of the natural condition of the fetus, and promptly recognize the situation of the fetus and take measures to remove the cause thereof. In ordinary times, in the case of a clinically clinically, the diagnosis of a fetus’s eggs based on the quantity of the fetus’s heart consent (e.g. beer, beer, an empty beer, the heart change in the heart, and the reduction of repeated fetus heart consent) is presumed to be difficult, but the diagnosis of a fetus’s eggs based on such an fetus’s heart stuff has a very limited meaning. Even if a fetus’s heart decline appears to be bad, it does not have significant influence on the fetus, but if a fetus appears to be reduced to less than 120 times per minute, it is suspected that the fetus is difficult, and if the fetus is reduced to less than 120 times per minute, it shall be deemed that the fetus’s report is very definite even if it is returned to 120-160 times before it.

Although it is not possible to uniformly determine the interval between the time to observe the condition of the mother and fetus in the course of delivery, the U.S. In the case of a low-risk pregnant group, the U.S. Medical Association recommends to listen to the fetus's body every 30 minutes in the first period of delivery in the case of a low-risk pregnant group, every 15 minutes in the second period of delivery in the case of a high-risk pregnant group, every 15 minutes in the first period of delivery in the case of a high-risk pregnant group, and every 5 minutes in the second period in

If it is deemed that the condition of a fetus is omitted in light of the quantity of the fetus in childbirth, if the fetus is administered, it shall be suspended, if the body part of the pregnant or nursing woman is changed, the amount of water supply is increased, the oxygen of 8-10 liters per minute shall be supplied through an on-site mar, and if no effect is effective, it shall be immediately attempted, i.e., as soon as possible, when it is not effective. In such cases, where it is deemed that only the physical part is a method of delivery higher than the preparation for the sang dog, it may be limited to the physical part.

(iii) fooding;

Fooding is inappropriate for the duration and livering of the fetus, but when the head mouth of the fetus is not fast, it means the treatment of the fetus being pushed down in the direction below the mother side in order to enhance the pressure of the mother's hair, and normally, the horseing shall be done in the direction below the mother on the breast side. In the absence of a cryp, it shall not be encouraged to do so, and when the cryp is operated, it shall be ensured that the cryp is not a cryp, and it shall be checked when the cryp, and shall be checked when the cryp is done, and shall be checked when the cryp is done, and shall be careful not to damage the mother's body and the fetus, and if the cryping is done without confirming whether the crypine's entry is completely opened, it may cause any damage to the mother's body body part and any cryption caused by any unreasonable difficulty.

(iv) Indemrum exactor

In the event that there is a heart disease, acute pulmonary pulmonary disease, powder infection, fluorological conditions, extreme skin, or delay in the second period of delivery to the mother of child, etc., the fetus attempted to escape from the flusium, flusium, fetus flusium, etc. before the flusium completely opened, the flusium can attempt to increase the possibility of landscape, as the flusium might increase the possibility of landscape because the flusium of the flusium could have been put to the flusium in the flusium.

The aftermath only due to the influoral therapy, the mother's body's external wound and sastatha, the fetus has both sastal, sathal, sathal, sathal, sathal, sathal, sathal, sathal, sathal, sathal, sathal, sathal, and sa

5) Therupture heat of a kind after delivery

2. 2. 2. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 2.. 1. 1. 1. 1: 1. 1: 1. 1: 1. 1: 1. 1. 1: 1. 1: 1. 1: 1. 1: 1. 1: 1. 1. m. m. m. m. m... 1. m. m.. m. m....

6) Apgar score (Apgar score)

Ep. A. H. scores means the five items of a newborn baby's condition, "Apear management, Pulse, Grimace, Activ, Resp.a.s. are measured twice for one minute and five minutes of birth, and the total score is 10 points, most newborns are 8-10 points, and most newborns are 8-10 points, and are 6 points or less, centralized management is required.

(2) Occurrence of damages liability

(A) by common rules

In order to be held liable for tort due to breach of the duty of care or non-performance of a medical act, the existence of causation between the violation of the duty of care, the occurrence of damages and the violation of the duty of care should be premised. However, in the case of a medical accident, medical practice requires highly specialized knowledge and the process of the medical treatment can only be known in addition to the patient himself/herself at his/her own discretion. Since the medical method to achieve the result of treatment depends on the doctor's discretion, it is difficult for the patient to prove whether the direct cause of damages occurred due to the medical negligence, not an expert but an ordinary doctor, and it is extremely difficult for the patient to prove that the causal relationship between the patient's violation of the duty of care and the occurrence of damages is medically perfect, and thus, it is extremely difficult for the patient to prove that the causal relationship between the result and the series of medical practice on the basis of the ordinary common sense at the victim to the extent that the patient did not have any other cause than a series of medical practice, and that the result of the medical treatment cannot be presumed to have been 20 or more due to have any other cause arising from the medical act.

(B) Presumption of medical negligence and causation

According to the above facts, around 22:30 on July 14, 2004, the defendant 1 had a view of 6-7 meters in her own landscape, 80% in her wombs and 0 embryob strengths, and Defendant 1, who is a pregnant woman and doctor, has to take measures such as earthquake-proof or active mecology measurement, gold and water supply, and so on. The defendant 1, who is the defendant 1, has to take measures to 100 p.m. her hairs and inhales 1 to 7 p.m. The defendant 1's hairs and inhales 1 to 3 p.m. her hairs and inhales 1 to 10 p.m. her hairs and 1 to 10 p.m. her hairs and 1 to 20 p.m. her hairs and 1 to 20 p.m. her hairs and 1 to 20 p.m. her hairs and 1 to 20 p.

Defendant 1’s medical malpractice and injury to the mother’s body before the delivery of this case, and both the Plaintiff 1 and the fetus were in normal condition without any special opinion. Plaintiff 1 was unable to find any special dangerous signs to Plaintiff 1 and the fetus before the delivery of the fetus. The fetus was delivered to a stillborn baby after the scarcity was missing due to a lack of oxygen in the process of delivery, and the fetus was delivered to a stillborn baby. In a case of phishing without ascertaining whether the fetus entered the body in a state where the womb was not completely opened, damage to the mother’s body’s body, unreasonable marction caused by the fetus’s marction. In full view of the above circumstances, it can be presumed that the fetus’s injury to the mother’s body and marction to the mother, the fetus’s injury to the mother’s body, and the fetus’s injury to the fetus’s body and marction to the fetus, and the Plaintiff 1’s injury to the fetus by negligence during the process of treatment.

(C) Whether he/she was negligent in performing a king operation

A doctor may choose the appropriate treatment methods among the patient's situation, medical treatment at the time, and several measures that may consider based on his professional knowledge and experience in the treatment. As long as it does not deviate from a reasonable scope, only one of them is justified and it cannot be said that there is any negligence to take other measures (Supreme Court Decision 94Da13046 delivered on June 25, 1996). In this case, as seen earlier, it is acknowledged on July 14, 2004: (a) it is difficult for Defendant 1, who grasped the phenomenon that Plaintiff 1's womb was completely opened, to find it difficult to accept only one of the following methods if the fetus was found to have been discharged from 60 to 70 minutes; (b) it is difficult to consider that the fetus was discharged from 10 to 10 to 60 to 10 to 10 to 10 to 10 to 205 to 10 to 120 to 20 to 120 to 20 to 1 to 1 to me.

(b) Scope of damages;

(1) Loss of the fetus

(A) The plaintiffs' assertion

(5) Although the fetus of this case died during delivery, the Plaintiffs asserted that the above fetus had inherited the Plaintiffs’ right to claim compensation for damages of KRW 127,690,214 and KRW 50,000, which are equivalent to the actual income of the Defendants, and that the above fetus has inherited the Plaintiffs’ right to claim compensation for damages. (A) Even if the above fetus had undergone any process or has been entirely exposed without any structural defect between them, it shall be deemed that it has acquired legal personality as an independent person even if it did not reach the degree of independent nursing. (b) Even if it is not so, it is difficult to view that the fetus’s right to claim compensation for damages can only be seen as having been separated from its mother’s body from its mother’s perspective without being considered as having been able to reach the current point of view that it would be necessary for the medical doctor to obtain the right to claim compensation for damages of the fetus from its mother as well as the current point of view that it would be necessary to obtain the right to claim compensation for damages of the fetus from its mother’s death.

(b) the sales board;

First of all, since Article 3 of the Civil Code provides that the time of human being is "the person shall be the subject of rights and obligations during his/her lifetime", the time of birth starting from his/her survival as a person shall be deemed to be the time of acquisition of his/her ability to enjoy the right, and since the birth was conducted through a series of physiological processes, such as childbirth, rather than a one-time time, it is important and difficult to regard the birth as a birth. However, as long as the time of human being is determined in the Civil Code, it is not medically to examine the physiological phenomenon, but to determine it from a legal point of view in accordance with the legislative intent of the Civil Code as to the ability to

Our Civil Act recognizes the individual’s ability to enjoy ownership freely in all judicial relations, such as property and family relations, and the abstract and general qualifications that can form a relationship of relatives, i.e., equal legal capacity. As can be seen, the right ability of a person who is the beginning of a judicial relationship ought to assist each country in the world pursuing the same legal ideology. In this regard, in Germany and Switzerland, it explicitly provides for the completion of birth as “the completion of birth” in Germany and Switzerland, and it is difficult to find legislation or practical precedents that recognize the right to claim damages against the deceased child if the fetus is still still dead, and the whole labor birth theory clearly determines the time of birth, it is difficult to accept the claim based on tort liability (Article 762 of the Civil Act), property (Article 100(3) of the Civil Act) for legal protection of the fetus, even if the fetus is not yet born individually, it is difficult to view that the fetus is not exposed to the mother’s body as a whole (Article 106(1)6 of the Civil Act).

However, in the case of full-time exposure theory, as the plaintiffs properly pointed out, there is a concern that the fetus already launched for only the part may be left in a dangerous situation or may instigate means to conceal medical malpractice, and considering the fact that the fetus that has already been born at the normal stage of correction, growth and childbirth of the fetus is not yet a newborn baby who has already completed childbirth in terms of the necessity of protecting the fetus's life value or the necessity of protection, it is reasonable to take into account the legal assessed value of the damage of the dead baby immediately after the completion of childbirth in calculating consolation money due to medical malpractice for the parent of the fetus.

(2) The plaintiffs' property damage

The plaintiff 1 spent the medical expenses for the 4rd column of the instant case. Since the labor ability was lost as a major subject to the imposition of the above injury, the plaintiff 1 claimed KRW 20,000,000 as property damage, and KRW 3,00,000 as funeral expenses of the fetus, there is no evidence to prove the above assertion as to the property damage caused by the plaintiff 1's injury. As long as the fetus of this case was still stillborn, the funeral expenses cannot be recognized, each of the above claims is without merit.

(3) The plaintiffs' consolation money

(A) Contents of the preliminary claim added at the trial;

The Plaintiffs initially sought as consolation money the payment of KRW 30,00,000 to Plaintiff 1, respectively, and KRW 20,000,000 to Plaintiff 2. However, in the first instance, if the fetus cannot be deemed to have died after acquiring the right and ability, the Plaintiffs added the conjunctive claim to seek the full amount of the claim as consolation money to the Plaintiffs.

(b) Consideration for reasons

After the delivery of this case, Plaintiff 1 was pregnant again in 2 years of pregnancy, but the risk of continuous miscarriage and assistance in child delivery, the risk of constant miscarriage and assistance in child delivery, the Plaintiffs’ special introduction from other doctors, and requested Defendant 1 to provide special medical treatment. The fetus of this case was every 40 weeks of pregnancy, and both the mother and the fetus before delivery to a female with the normal body of 3.10 km, and the normal opinion was expected. The plaintiffs were suffering from their occupation for 3 years of marriage, and the plaintiffs 1 suffered considerable physical pain during the treatment period by suffering from the 4 degrees of Madern, and the amount of consolation money should be calculated as compensation for mental suffering from the medical malpractice of this case by taking into account the circumstances and results of the accident of this case, the Plaintiffs’ social status and age, and other various circumstances revealed in the arguments of this case.

(c) the amount determined;

Plaintiff 1: 45,00,000 Won (30,000,000 upon the principal claim + 15,000,000 won upon the preliminary claim)

Plaintiff 2: 30,000,000 Won (20,000 upon the principal claim + 10,000,000 won upon the preliminary claim)

(4) The theory of lawsuit

Therefore, the defendants are liable for damages caused by tort. 45,00,000 won per annum for each of the plaintiffs 1, 30,000 won per annum for the damages incurred by the plaintiff 2, and 25,000 won per annum for the damages incurred by the plaintiff 1, the part cited by the court of first instance for the damages incurred by the plaintiff 2, and 20,000 won for the plaintiff 2,000 won for the damages incurred by the plaintiff 2, and 30,000 won for the damages incurred by the plaintiff 1, the date of the accident in this case, which is 14 July 2004 to 11, 206, 5% per annum under the Civil Act, 200 per annum for the damages incurred by the plaintiff 2,000 won per annum for the damages incurred by the plaintiff 1, which are 30,000 won per annum for the damages incurred by the plaintiff 2,000 won per annum for the remaining damages incurred by the court of first instance.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff 1's main claim and the plaintiff's conjunctive claim are accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and they are dismissed for reasons for the remaining main claim and conjunctive claim of the plaintiff 1. Since part of the judgment of the court of first instance as to the plaintiff 1 is unfair, the part against the plaintiff 1 in the judgment of first instance which was partially accepted the plaintiff 1's appeal and the part against the plaintiff 1 in the judgment of first instance which was ordered to pay the above money is revoked, and the part against the plaintiff 1 in the judgment of first instance which was ordered to pay the above money is ordered to pay the above money to the defendants, and upon the plaintiff's supplementary claim added at the court of first instance, the order to pay the money as stated in Paragraph 2 of the disposition is ordered, and the remaining appeal by the plaintiff 1, 2'

Judges Choi Jong-hun (Presiding Judge)