Plaintiff (Attorney Lee Yong-soo, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Attorney Park Jin-jin, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

December 22, 2004

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 96,742,593 won with 5% interest per annum from January 27, 1994 to May 31, 2003, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. Progress of treatment

(1) The Plaintiff: (a) was within the hospital operated by the Defendant, a medical specialist on January 14, 1994, in order to perform a visual therapy among the high-level cities with the degree of 8.5diobservers (diopter) and -8.0diobservers (diopter), whose time limit falls short of 0.1; and (b) had experienced inconvenience in living.

As a result, the Defendant measured the Plaintiff’s internal pressure on the 18th day of the same month at a higher level than 10-21mmHg, which is the range of normal pressure, and measured the Plaintiff’s internal pressure on the 18th day of the same month. As a result, the Plaintiff’s internal pressure was measured at a higher level than 12mHg, 16mHg, 16mHg, in the friendly 14mHg, in the east 24mHg, in the east 22mHg, in the east 22mHg, and in the east 18th day of the same month.

(2) On January 27, 1994, after undergoing the above examination, the Defendant saw the Plaintiff’s right eye on the left eye on March 10, 1994. On March 10, 194, the Defendant conducted an operation of soft raculation devices, one xcer xcer racer (Exr lucer) operation, which renders correction of flacing of flacings by cutting the surface of each lacing body by using the racer ray lines on the left left eye, and then 1.0 on April 18, 1994, which was after the operation on the macs, performed an operation.

With respect to the side effects or mergers of the X-rayer operation, there are excessive corrections or insufficient corrections, each single marries, present insignias and flags, internal flaging, hairing, laging, laging, the maximum corrective eyesight decrease, etc., and the melting in itself does not occur due to the operation itself.

(3) In order to prevent the occurrence of side effects, such as dynasium, synasium, and synasium, after the X-ray operation, the synasium for three to six months after the normal operation. As such, the synasium with the efficacy of preventing dynasium and treating synasium is not included in the substance of synasium (Synasium), but in general, the synasium is administered with excellent synasium in the synasium in the synasium.

However, although the stroke medicine is superior to other internal medicine, it is generally considered that the normal user 5-6% of the internal pressure seems to have increased significantly, and if the state of the device pressure continues for a considerable period without resolving it, it is necessary to measure the stroke medicine on a regular basis.

(4) The Plaintiff was examined by the Defendant once a day between three days after the instant surgery, three days from the following day to the second day after the surgery, and one week from the next day to the fourth week from the surgery, and was determined by the Defendant as to the amount of the draft of the reduction of lusium (TPL), the lusium (TPL), the lusium (TPL), the lusium (Flusiumthone), and the lusium (TFL). The inside and the point of the instant surgery are all included in the lusium.

(5) On February 28, 1994, 1994, the Plaintiff’s friendly pressure measured at 30m Hgg of the Plaintiff’s friendly pressure, and the Defendant changed the prescription to the amount of flusium occupancy with less 30m Hg of the Plaintiff’s friendly pressure, and at the same time prescribed the amount of chlosium, which was forced to perform eutension. As a result, on March 7 of the same year, after one week, the euthanum pressure measured at 18m Hg of the same month fell. Since the euthanum pressure increased at 25m Hg of the same month, the Defendant prescribed the euthanum pressure again on April 18 of the same year by prescribing the euthanum pressure, which was measured at 18m Hg of the same year, and thereafter, the euthanum pressure did not increase within 16m of the same year, even if euum pressure was continuously used as a result of continuous measurement on August 11 of the same year. 196m.

The plaintiff received medical treatment from the defendant five times in 1995 on January 6, 27, May 6, 27, June 24, 24, and July 22, 1996, February 1, 1996, and October 17, 1997. The defendant prescribed the amount of four strokes in 1995 to the plaintiff. The amount of each prescription issued to the plaintiff was a quantity that can be used for about one week, and the amount of one strokes in 1996 and 197 to the plaintiff within the normal limit. The plaintiff's internal pressure measured in 1995 was all within the normal limit.

(6) The Plaintiff’s friendly vision had 1.0 degree after the X-ray operation. From November 1994 to 0.5, the Naban vision had been reduced to 0.1 as a result of the measurement on February 9, 1998. The Defendant diagnosed that the Nabancy was caused by the Naban City’s decline. The Defendant diagnosed the Defendant that the Nabancy was caused by the Maban City, and conducted the Maban surgery on the 19th of the same month, and conducted the Maban surgery on the Plaintiff’s friendship on March 28, 1998. The Plaintiff’s Mabancy was improved to 0.9.9.

The Plaintiff’s internal pressure measured before conducting a food operation was normal state of 11mm Hg and 15mm Hg in the friendly letter, and any kind of inspection conducted for the above operation did not have any special error in the Plaintiff’s quantity.

(7) The plaintiff was examined by the defendant seven times from August 24, 1998 after the food surgery, and the plaintiff's internal pressure measured on August 24, 1998 was 14mm Hg and 12mm Hg of the left, and the defendant, after the food surgery, directly included the stroke in the stroke, but did not prescribe the stroke drug thereafter. The plaintiff was examined by the defendant again on February 12, 1999.

On March 2, 199, the Plaintiff was diagnosed as being under way in the process of melting the primary marry in both banks, as a result of the medical treatment conducted by the Pakistan Hospital, which is a general hospital.

(8) After that, according to the results of the examination conducted by the Seoul University Hospital on October 26, 2001 by the commission of this court, the Plaintiff was diagnosed to have suffered from a decline in eyesight and a loss of vision in both sides of the examination and the field of vision, as the result of the examination conducted by the court on October 26, 2001.

B. Medical facts pertaining to the instant case

(1) The melting Chapter generally is a disease which causes damage to the eyesight and is a serious disease to the real name, if it continues to worsen due to the increase of resistant pressure by failing to properly emit water generated within the inner premises due to any cause.

However, it is not detrimental to the rise of eutension among the melting Chapter, but it is within the normal range, and eutension is open even if there is no safe disease or telegraphic disease that can be the cause of eurdam loss, and there is a unique rustpathral pathral pathral pathral pathral pathy and pathral pathral pathic pathic mathral mathral mathral mathral mathral mathy (which is the majority of the arguments that such expressions are unfair because the mathal matha is within the normal range).

(2) In order to prevent the departure of each x-ray and the x-ray from the operation of the x-rayer, the amount of the ice dypoids commonly used may cause a rise of internal pressure within about 5% of normal persons. Among them, when used for a long period of time, the rise of internal pressure has not been resolved for a considerable period of time, it may cause damage to the x-ray due to the pressure of the device, and may cause or deepen the x-ray. This is the x-ray dypar. This is, without any symptoms, the x-site change, the vision loss, the increase of internal pressure, and the decrease of the outflow rate with the normal x-ray structure in the x-rayer test, and there is no device voltage evidence before the use of the xine drug, but it is well known that the clinical pressure of the radioactive drug has been recovered within the day or week, and thus, if the use of the x-ray drug has increased, it can be easily known that the clinical pressure has been recovered normally within the day.

(3) Although there is no difference in the symptoms of normal pressure melting and stheme melting, it is difficult to find out only the cause of the normal pressure melting, but only the cause of the occurrence is the physical form, and the other accurate cause was not revealed. There are many cases where the sacrife is discovered after the sacrife of the patient when the sacrife continues while maintaining the state of the sacr within the normal range, and the patient’s sacrife is not sacratic, and the sacrife is found after the sacrife’s sacrife’s sacrife is used, and the sacrife’s sacrife is over the normal range after the sacrife's sacrife's sacrife's sacr.

(4) The circumstances that may be suspected of melting are the cases where there is a continuous increase of eutension and a change of melting crypology in the euthana test, etc., and it does not appear to be a melting cryp of the central visual force, so there are many cases where the patient himself/herself is unable to feel an abnormal disorder caused by melting.

(5) In a way to diagnose melting the melting, first of all, an internal pressure test measuring visual pressure, and an internal body transit test measuring the existence and degree of the damage in light of the shape of the spathy. In ordinary, it is possible to verify the outbreak of melting merely an internal pressure test and an internal body transit pool test. However, there are cases where it does not appear as an internal body test. In such a case, it is possible to diagnose whether to melting the internal body by conducting an additional visual test assessing the visual disorder caused by spathic damage.

C. The Defendant did not explain to the Plaintiff as to the fact that the Plaintiff, before the surgery, may occupy the ice medication to prevent dystrophism after the surgery, and that, in such a case, eu pressure increased depending on the physical talent, and that the stroke may occur as a result of the stroke surgery.

D. Although the Defendant implemented the result of the x oplaser surgery and the malves test before the surgery, it was not possible to discover any more than anything, and the Defendant did not have any equipment for the field test and did not conduct the field test.

[Evidence] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2-1, 2, 3, 11, 12, 15, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2-2 (the defendant is alleged to be altered by a writing, correction, etc., but the defendant's evidence No. 14 is not believed to be stated, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise), the result of the defendant's examination, the result of the court's entrustment of physical examination to the director of the Seoul National University Hospital, the result of the examination of the doctor's association of the Korea National University Hospital, the result of the entrustment of the examination of medical records (Supplement)

2. Determination

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff failed to perform the duty to explain that the Plaintiff’s internal pressure may arise through the administration of an internal medicine, on the premise that the Plaintiff’s internal medicine was the ice melting site. ② Since the Plaintiff’s internal pressure was measured by 24mm Hg and 22mm Hg in the first internal pressure test before the X-ray operation, the Plaintiff should have examined whether the Plaintiff’s internal pressure was normal by measuring the Plaintiff’s internal pressure over several occasions, but the Plaintiff’s internal pressure was easily determined as normal internal pressure only by measuring 12mm Hg and 16mm in the second internal pressure test after several days, and thus, the Plaintiff neglected to perform the duty to explain that it was likely to cause the Plaintiff to accurately reflect the Plaintiff’s accurate state. ③ In the process of receiving medical treatment after the X-ray operation, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff was not liable for damages caused to the Plaintiff’s internal pressure caused by the use of the Plaintiff’s internal medicine, and that the Plaintiff was not liable for damages caused by the Plaintiff’s internal pressure during the medical process.

B. Determination

(1) First, on the premise that the Plaintiff’s Greenhead is a stehyme arising from an inappropriate administration of the Defendant’s stehyme, the Defendant failed to perform his duty to explain that the stehyme may arise due to the administration of the stehyme medication, and the Defendant did not perform his duty to explain that the stehyme may arise due to the administration of the stehyme medicine, and there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff’s occurrence of the stehyme was caused by the Defendant’s stehyme medication. Rather, the Plaintiff’s Greenhead was diagnosed as a stehumum counter head unrelated to the Defendant’s stehyme medication, and the above assertion is without merit.

The Plaintiff asserted that the results of physical appraisal of Seoul National University Hospital, which diagnosed the Plaintiff’s Recording as the head of the normal tension, should be rejected in light of the Plaintiff’s experience of euse pressure caused by the operation of an internal medicine. However, as seen earlier, as seen in the above facts, the Plaintiff measured euse pressure exceeding normal euse pressure as a result of performing an internal pressure measurement before it was performed by the Defendant, while there was a rise in euse pressure over several times, the Plaintiff was undermining the Defendant’s internal pressure without any prescription or special prescription, and the period of its increase is not long, and it is difficult to recognize that the Plaintiff’s euse pressure was generated within 198 times since it was difficult for the Plaintiff to use ¡¯s eusesesesesechercheric medicine before February 27, 1995, and the Defendant’s eusecheric pressure was not generated within the short time limit of 19 out of the prescription surgery. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the eusechercheric pressure was not generated within the 19th of the prescription.

In addition, the plaintiff asserts that the use of the defendant's inappropriate steward medication caused normal tension to the plaintiff. However, the use of the steward medication is due to the increase in stephical pressure, and that the use of the stephoid medication causes damage to the stephroid, and that the cause of the use of the stephroid medication is not revealed, it cannot be said that the use of the stephroid medication caused normal tension. Therefore, the above assertion is without merit (in all evidence submitted by the plaintiff, it cannot be recognized that the stephroid medication does not cause a rise in stephroid and may cause a normal tension stephrology even without causing an increase in stephroid pressure).

(2) In addition, the Defendant alleged that there was a negligence by neglecting the inspection by only twice the internal pressure test prior to the X-ray operation. However, even if such an inspection was neglected, it cannot be said that there was a substantial causal relationship between the failure of the prosecutor and the outbreak of normal voltage emission. Therefore, the above assertion is without merit.

(3) Lastly, the plaintiff asserts that even though there was a melting melting melting while receiving treatment from the defendant, the defendant did not diagnose the occurrence while treating the plaintiff until February 12, 1999, and that the time of melting melting the plaintiff was delayed and a considerable amount of loss was carried out, the plaintiff is liable for compensating for the damage.

In light of the above facts, it can be recognized that the plaintiff was diagnosed in a general hospital since February 12, 199, which provided medical treatment to the plaintiff, at least before the last day of the defendant's medical treatment (the defendant is recognized at his own newspaper). However, there is no special symptoms in the outbreak of normal voltage, and the defendant conducted various inspections before the implementation of the X-ray operation and the surgery, even though there was a test that can diagnose the e-mail during the examination, the defendant could not find the e-mail, and the defendant could not have found the e-mail after the operation of the e-mail, since there was no symptoms that the plaintiff was diagnosed in a general hospital since February 12, 199 which provided medical treatment to the plaintiff, and since there were no symptoms in the e-mail operation and the e-mail operation, the defendant could not assert that there was a possibility that the e-mail operation was conducted within the normal period of the e-mail operation, the defendant could not assert that there was any fear that the e-mail operation had not been conducted within the e-mail.

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is without merit, and it is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Jong-han