beta
Text
The judgment below
The part against the Defendants is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Central District Court.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal and incidental grounds of appeal are examined.
1. As to the grounds of incidental appeal by the Defendants
A. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found the Defendant B’s liability on the ground that the Defendant B, a dentist, neglected to perform the instant surgery (hereinafter “instant surgery”) and exercised a careful care to prevent infections. However, due to the Plaintiff’s mistake in failing to take measures, such as neglecting to undergo a close diagnosis taking into account the likelihood of infections, even though the Plaintiff continuously complained of two copies and heats after the instant surgery, and caused the Plaintiff’s infections of Leptospir Lirir Cirra and the infections that were transferred from the instant surgery, and as a result, the Plaintiff’s right side eye was lost.
B. However, we cannot accept the above determination by the court below for the following reasons.
(1) Medical practice is an area requiring highly specialized knowledge, and it is extremely difficult for a general person, not an expert, to clarify whether he/she has breached his/her duty of care in the course of medical practice, or whether there exists causation between the violation of his/her duty of care and the occurrence of damage. As such, when symptoms causing a serious result occur to a patient during the surgery or after the surgery, it may be presumed that such symptoms are based on medical negligence by proving indirect facts that it is difficult to deem any other reason than medical negligence. However, even in such a case, it is not permissible to prove the causal relationship between the doctor’s negligence and the result by presumptioning the causal relationship with the doctor’s negligence, on the grounds that there is no probability that the occurrence of a result is likely to be presumed due to a doctor’s negligence.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Da96010 Decided June 27, 2013, etc.). (2)