(a) The case holding that it is presumed that the low half half of the patient's low half of the vertebrate ties surgery was caused by doctor's negligence;

(b) If a victim gains the same income as the previous one in the previous workplace, whether to recognize property damage caused by a physical and functional disorder;

(c) Whether a physician is entitled to claim the payment of operating expenses or medical expenses where a medical accident occurs due to his/her failure to fulfill the duty of due care as a good manager;

(a) The case holding that it is presumed that the patient's lower half-half of the vertebrate ties surgery was caused by the doctor's negligence.

B. Where calculating damages for lost interests due to tort by recognizing and evaluating the victim’s labor disability loss rate, even if the victim gains income without difference from the previous workplace in the previous workplace despite the symptoms, barring any special circumstance, it cannot be readily concluded that the victim did not have any property damage due to physical disability, barring any special circumstance. Moreover, even if the victim was paid the same remuneration from the previous workplace until the closing of argument at the fact-finding court, it cannot be deemed as the benefit in proximate causal relation with the accident, and the perpetrator’s amount of such remuneration should not be deducted from the amount of damages to be compensated for.

C. Medical treatment obligations owed by a physician to a patient shall be deemed as a means obligation, i.e., the obligation to perform necessary and appropriate medical treatment measures in light of the current medical level with the duty of due care of a good manager for the treatment of a patient, not as a result of the performance of the same result as the treatment of a disease. Therefore, even though the above duty of care was fulfilled, if the disease was not treated, medical expenses may be claimed. However, if the patient’s physical function was not cured due to the physician’s failure to perform the duty of due care as a good manager, and if the treatment was performed only to the extent that the recovery of the post-treatment or prevention of further aggravation after the damage was inflicted, the doctor’s treatment act is not based on the medical treatment obligation, or is merely part of the damage, and thus, it cannot be claimed against the patient as a part of the hospital.

A. Articles 390 and 750 of the Civil Act. Article 763 (Article 393) of the Civil Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 92Da2924 delivered on December 8, 1992 (Gong1993,431). Supreme Court Decision 91Da7798 delivered on August 13, 1991 (Gong1991,238), Supreme Court Decision 91Da45929 delivered on September 25, 1992 (Gong1992,297), Supreme Court Decision 92Da31361 delivered on December 22, 1992 (Gong193,576) (Gong1989,88)

Plaintiff 1 and 3 others, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee and two others

Attorney Choi Jong-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 90Na29694 delivered on March 11, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal (the grounds of appeal on the supplement of the grounds of appeal are examined within the scope of supplement).

On the first ground for appeal

(1) According to the court below's finding that the plaintiff 1 was under pressure on vertebrate surgery for the treatment of the above 7 and 8 severe vertebral vertecule surgery, and that the plaintiff 1 was under pressure on vertebral vertecule surgery (the above vertecule vertecule cule cule cule cule cule cule cule cule cule cule cule cule cule cule cule cule cule cule cule cule cule cule cule cule cule cule cule cule cule cule cule cule cule cule cule cule cule cule cule cule.).

(2) In addition, as determined by the court below, the plaintiff 1's nives mathy mathy was revealed immediately after the above non-party 1's verteball mathy surgery of this case, and there is no possibility that there was any other cause between the above operation and the above nives surgery. Rather, the above plaintiff 1's nives mathy mathy cannot be viewed as the operation preparation process or the operation process, and the circumstances that caused the nives nives mathy in the operation process of spinte nivesium, there is no case where the nives mathy is entirely reported, and in the third and fourth cases, the above plaintiff 1's nives mathy mathy is no longer presumed to have caused an acute nives mathy operation due to lives of the above non-party 1's error in the operation process, e.g., spinal damage to spinal ky.

Therefore, the court below's decision that recognized the above non-party's negligence in the course of operation and judged that the defendant is liable as an employer is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the causal relationship between medical practice and the occurrence of damages, such as the theory of lawsuit. The argument is without merit.

On the second ground for appeal

When calculating the loss of the victim's work ability by recognizing and assessing the loss of the victim's work ability due to a legacy by another person's tort, such loss of the work ability should be the profit-making loss rate determined according to the empirical rule, taking into account all of the victim's age, educational degree, the nature of the previous work and career, the degree of skilled experience and skills, the degree of occupational expertise and skills similar to the degree of physical skills, and other types of work or other types of work similar to the degree of disability, and other social and economic conditions. Thus, if the court duly admitted and assessed the victim's work ability loss rate, even if the victim gains income from the previous work in the same workplace as the previous one despite the victim's symptoms, it cannot be concluded that the victim did not have any property damage due to a physical disability, barring any special circumstance. Further, even if the plaintiff 1 received the same remuneration from the previous Korean Broadcasting System until the closure of the arguments at the fact-finding court, it cannot be viewed that the defendant's compensation for damages cannot be viewed as a reasonable causal relation.

There is no reason for this issue.

On the third ground for appeal

The duty of medical treatment to be borne by a physician to a patient is not a duty of care as a result of the achievement of the same result as the treatment of a disease, but a duty of care as a good manager to take necessary and appropriate measures in light of the current medical level. Therefore, even though the patient fulfilled the above duty of care, the medical treatment can be claimed even if the disease was not treated as a result of the medical treatment.

However, according to the facts established by the court below, when conducting an operation through the basic examination of the plaintiff 1, the doctor in charge did not perform the above duty of care as a good manager, thereby undermining the patient's physical function. In addition, according to the records, after the above damage, only the treatment was continued to the extent that the recovery of the post-treatment tax or preventing any further aggravation. Thus, the treatment of the above non-party 1 is not based on the nature of the medical obligation, or it was performed as part of the damage, and thus, the hospital can not claim for the expenses of the operation or treatment against the patient.

The court below's rejection of the defendant's assertion that the medical expense claim and the plaintiff 1's damage claim set-off on an equal amount is justifiable, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding legal principles as to the nature of the medical expense obligation. The arguments are without merit.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)