beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, and this case is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, as it is the ground for the judgment of the first instance except for the following additional judgments.
2. Additional determination
A. According to the assertion that the leakage inspection was not conducted in the course of the instant surgery, the statement or image of evidence Nos. 2-6, No. 10, and each fact-finding inquiry reply to F Hospital, Defendant C’s performance of the water leakage inspection to verify whether or not the leakage of the parts of the instant surgery was conducted in the process of the instant surgery, the fact that the inspection was confirmed as not being leaked, and the fact that the second operation of December 9, 2015 was confirmed as not being leaked.
Furthermore, in preparing medical records, a doctor shall choose the time and method in which matters and opinions regarding the medical treatment can be easily and accurately recorded in an easy, prompt and accurate manner. However, since the Medical Service Act does not have specific provisions concerning the time and method of preparing medical records, if a doctor stated that matters and opinions regarding medical treatment can be used in accordance with the above purpose, regardless of its name, it constitutes a medical record as stated in the above Act. The specific time and method of preparing medical records should be within the reasonable discretion of the relevant doctor in light of the contents of the relevant medical act and the treatment progress of patients, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 97Do1234, Aug. 29, 197). Accordingly, if the Plaintiff was leaked at the time of the instant operation, it is necessary to make additional falsing or saving, and in such a case, the fact that there was any leakage of doors and the treatment process should have been recorded. However, as seen earlier, the Defendant C, as mentioned above, should have seen.