beta
Text
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. When a doctor provides medical services, such as diagnosis, medical treatment, etc., he/she has a duty of care to take the best measures required to prevent any danger depending on the patient's specific symptoms or circumstances, considering the nature of the service
Such a duty of care of a doctor shall be based on the level of medical practice performed in the field of clinical medicine, such as a medical institution, at the time of performing a medical act. The level of medical care refers to the so-called medical common sense known to and known to a normal doctor at the time of performing a medical act. As such, the normative level should be determined by considering the environment and conditions of medical treatment
(2) On March 26, 199, the court below acknowledged the facts and circumstances as stated in its reasoning. 2. The court below determined that the Plaintiff suffered from cerebral damage by inserting the Plaintiff without immediately inserting the engine pipes when the Plaintiff’s respiratory suspension occurred due to the Defendant’s mistake. In light of the following: (a) the Defendant was aware that the Plaintiff was in a state of undermining the recognition ability; (b) by examining the details and contents of the “the surgery performed” that the Plaintiff told through the medical record, etc., it was confirmed that the Plaintiff was in a state of undermining the identification capacity; (c) the Plaintiff had been fully prepared to prepare for emergency situations, such as the Plaintiff’s failure to take such measures and notify the Plaintiff of the risk of the Plaintiff at the time of the Plaintiff’s water surface condition; and (d) the Defendant failed to immediately inserting the engine pipes when the Plaintiff was found to have been in a state of undermining the recognition ability.
3. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal principles and records, some inappropriate points are found as a result of the lower judgment’s judgment.
Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, logic and experience.