2013 Ghana 29348 (Definition)

○○ (Guang○○ prior to the opening of name)

Law Firm Gyeong-Gyeong, Counsel for defendant-appellant

[Defendant-Appellee]

A person shall be appointed.

Law Firm Sejong, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

[Defendant-Appellee]

February 26, 2015

April 2, 2015

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff 59, 151, 341 won and 20% interest per annum from April 3, 2015 to the date of full payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the litigation costs, 50% is borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder is borne by the Defendant.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 110, 511, 962 won with 20% interest per annum from the day following the day of the pronouncement of this case to the day of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. The defendant is a medical specialist of the sexual outdoor department, who operates the sexual outdoor department of the area of the Nam-gu, Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu.

B. The defendant performed the following medical practice against the plaintiff in the above sex surgery.

On January 5, 2013, the Defendant: (a) on both sides, for the Plaintiff, a lusent oxygen (a local inhaled alcoholic beverage + a vertical smoke).

The treatment was conducted (the first operation).

1. 7. The disinfection of the first place and the past good;

1. 9. Slives removal

12. Commencement of treatment for salt certificates;

1. 15. The second operation

1. Hospitalization of Ulsan National University Hospital from 15. to 2. 13. Ulsan National University Hospital, and treatment of dystrophism

1. The third operation on 26. 26.

C. After the above surgery, after the Plaintiff suffered losses and modifications of the right chest real organization, the loss of the right breast, the loss of the two wheeled body, the two transformation, and the situation where the reflectr was deteriorated and widening after the surgery on both sides, etc.

D. On March 5, 2013, the Plaintiff received treatment for re-building of the two-wheeled wheels complex by means of inception in Seoul National University Hospital.

E. Since then, the Plaintiff received the following operation at the Seoul National University Hospital:

on March 5, 2014, e.g., preservation e., e., e., preservation e., e., e.s.

5.14. Removal of organizational expansions, and inserting of plastic products, right-hand.

The left-hand side of the Silverging and Maternal Plaverging;

[Ground of recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap1 through 10, Eul evidence 20, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, the result of the commission of physical examination to the director of the non-persive mother hospital at the National University and the result of fact inquiry, the medical corporation's results of the entrustment of medical examination to the director of the roadside Medical Foundation, the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. 1) In a claim for damages due to a breach of duty of care, where it is proved that the injured party's act of medical negligence based on the ordinary sense of the general public in the course of a series of medical act and that there is no other cause, other than a series of medical acts, it is established by the Supreme Court to alleviate the burden of proof so that the causal relationship between the medical negligence and the result can be presumed and liable for damages (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 93Da52402, Feb. 10, 1995; 2004Da2342, Oct. 27, 2006; 2009Da8275, Jan. 27, 2012).

2) Medical practice is an area requiring highly specialized knowledge, and it is extremely difficult to find out whether a doctor’s medical practice was in violation of the duty of care, or there was causation between a doctor’s breach of the duty of care and the occurrence of losses. Thus, it is also possible to presume that the symptoms were based on medical negligence by proving indirect facts that, in the event of symptoms causing a result to a patient while or after an operation, it is difficult to deem that there is any other cause than medical negligence. However, even in this case, it is difficult to presume that the symptoms were based on medical negligence by proving indirect facts regarding the occurrence of the symptoms. However, it does not allow a doctor to bear the burden of proof of negligence by estimating the causal relationship between a doctor’s negligence and a person who was caused by a doctor’s negligence in the process of medical practice (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da45185, Oct. 28, 2004; Supreme Court Decision 200Da4187, Oct. 16, 2010).

B. According to the results of the above physical appraisal and fact inquiry, ① the loss and transformation of the breast body to the right side of the defendant after undergoing a breast-proof operation, ② the loss of the breast-pathic body, salivation of breast-pathic body, ② the loss of the right side of the breast-pathic body, ② the loss of the breast-pathic body to the right side of the breast-pathic body, and the main cause of alteration of the breast-pathic body, ② the fact that the 6th anniversary of the infection after the operation was carried out by the plaintiff, ② the fact that the 6th anniversary of the infection of the above pathic body, etc. was not carried out by the defendant, ③ the removal of the mathic body of the defendant after the operation, ④ the removal of the mathic body of the plaintiff, ④ the removal of the mathic body of the mathic body, etc. after the operation, and the removal of the mathic body of the plaintiff.

Comprehensively taking account of the above legal principles and the facts acknowledged as above, the main cause of the above result occurred to the plaintiff after the operation of this case seems to be ‘the lack of blood transfusions, including the combination of fluids' and ‘the infections after the operation'. The cause can be seen as not only the medical negligence before or during the surgery, but also other causes, such as blood species after the operation, infection, personal characteristics, smoking, and dysium.

However, according to the above evidence, it is difficult to view the occurrence of the above symptoms as other causes such as blood or the plaintiff's personal characteristics, smoking, etc., in addition to the defendant's medical negligence (the plaintiff's smoking was caused by the occurrence and aggravation of the above symptoms, but it is not sufficient to recognize the above evidence alone). Since there is no evidence to prove that the defendant took measures such as supplementing operation methods or using drugs such as blood fladrosis or blood fralivation prevention agents, etc. in order to prevent the condition of blood ties, it is not possible to recognize that the plaintiff took measures such as supplementing the operation methods or using drugs such as blood fladrosis, etc., so eventually, the plaintiff's loss and alteration of the right fladral system, the right fladral loss, fladral change, both sides's surgery and treatment in the direction to minimize the influence of the blood before surgery and the surgery, the aftermathnosis occurred due to the defendant's failure to perform all preventive measures and treatment.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages caused by the above medical malpractice.

C. Limitation on liability for damages

Meanwhile, even to the Plaintiff, the Defendant’s liability is limited to 50% by taking account of all the circumstances indicated in the change theory, such as the risk of the instant surgery itself and the fair burden of damages between the parties.

3. Scope of liability for damages

(Calculation of the current price of the amount of damages caused by the instant accident shall be based on the discount method that deducts intermediate interest at the rate of 5/12 per month, and the amount of less than KRW and less than monthly shall be discarded.)

A. The plaintiff's losses

(i) lost earnings;

A) Facts of recognition

(1) The plaintiff's gender, age,

- With respect to ○. ○. ○, a female of birth, and 30 years of age and 9 months of age at the time of surgery ( January 5, 2013)

(2) The income status, the occupation

-residential area: Urban area:

- Job: Daily Labor Service

- Pays: 1,847,450 won

(3) The period of loss of labor capacity;

- From January 15, 2013 to May 21, 2014, 100% for about 16 months from the time of the instant surgery at the discharge of the Seoul large hospital.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute; Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 19; the results of the above physical appraisal commission and fact inquiry; the results of the medical record appraisal commission; the purport of the whole pleadings

(b) Calculation: 22, 348, 602

A person shall be appointed.

2) Future treatment costs: 18,758,000 won in total;

The right-hand refluoring, the left-hand refluoring fluoring, the right-hand refluoring, the left-hand fluoring operation using an organization, the second operation: the correction operation, the refluoring operation, the third operation, the third operation: a lelabing the color of both banks, which is similar in a similar way to the shape of both banks.)

[Ground of recognition] Results of the above physical examination commission and fact-finding results, results of the request for examination of medical records, purport of body before oral argument

3) Medical expenses

The treatment costs of Ulsansan Hospital: 1, 821, 350 won

Medical treatment costs in the East River Hospital: 43,950 won

Seoul East Hospital treatment and transplant surgery expenses; 3,032, 690 won

Purchase of medical instruments: 50,000 won

SectorU.S. O.S. O.S. E. O.S. E. O. O. O.S. T. O.S. T. O.S. T. O.S.C.

Shelle fluor fluor fluor fluor fluor 11,529,660

Medical treatment costs from January 28, 2014 to June 12, 2014: 1,402,450 won

Total: 27, 196, 080 won

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 12-19 Evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

4) The Defendant asserts that the medical expenses and the future medical treatment expenses in the physical examination report of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Hospital are the same as that for the prevention of floating disaster, and thus, it cannot be filed in duplicate. According to the statement of No. 120 and the result of the above medical examination entrustment, the above two operations are different from each other in the operation room. After the treatment of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Hospital, the above operations are deemed to require the above future medical treatment (the right bank reconstition, the right bank reconstition, the left-hand reconstition of reconstition, the reconstition of reconstition of reconstition, the reconstition of reconstition of reconstition). Therefore, the Defendant’s above assertion cannot be accepted.

5) Fruits offsetting

(A) The defendant's liability ratio

The defendant's liability is limited to 50% as described in the above 2-C.

(B) The amount of damages offsetting negligence

(1) The sum of damages referred to in paragraphs (1) through (3) above

22, 348, 602 + 18, 758, 00 won + 27, 196, 080 won = 68, 302, 682 won

(2) 68, 302, 682 won x 50% = 34,151, 341 won

(b) Consolation money;

In light of the Plaintiff’s age, family relations, the circumstances surrounding the instant accident, and the father’s degree and degree of the aftermath disability, it is evident that the unmarried female Plaintiff suffered considerable mental damage due to the aftermath, such as the loss, alteration, loss of her wheels, change of dunes, change of dunes, and trace of the basin, etc. Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to pay 25,00,000 won to the Plaintiff as consolation money.

4. Conclusion

Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff damages at the rate of 59, 151, 341 won ( = 34,151, 341 won + solatium 25,000,000) and damages for delay at the rate of 20% per annum from April 3, 2015 to the date of complete payment.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as they are not reasonable. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Maximum number of judges