2014 Gohap6812 Compensation (Definition)

1. ① Doz.

Suwon-si

2. B. B.

Olsan City

3. III:

Suwon-si

[Defendant-Appellant]

[Judgment of the court below]

1. △△;

Suwon-si

Attorney Lee Do-young

2. A school foundation M Teaching institute;

Seoul

Representative Director

Law Firm Doz.

Attorney Lee In-bok

June 27, 2017

July 18, 2017

1. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The Defendants jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff A(1) 53, 326, 307 won, Plaintiff B(307), and this third party 48, 326, 307 won, respectively, and 15% per annum from May 9, 2012 to the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and from the next day to the day of full payment.

.

1. Basic facts

A. Status of the party

1) Defendant Park Jong-young is a person who establishes and operates a Suwon A Hospital (hereinafter referred to as “A hospital”), and the Ma Institute of M&A (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant M&A”) is a corporation that establishes and operates M&A hospital (hereinafter referred to as “S hospital”).

2) The Kim○○○ (hereinafter “the Deceased”) died after being treated at each of the above hospitals, and the Plaintiffs are the children of the Deceased.

B. The deceased’s death history

1) On April 21, 2012, the Deceased interfered with the activities of both sides of A Hospital, and received medical treatment from A Hospital and △△△△△△△△. As a result of the examination, such as radiation photographs, etc., the Deceased was diagnosed by both sides of the sulp sule sule sule sule sule sule sule sule sule sule sule sule sule

2) On May 8, 198, the deceased was hospitalized in A Hospital at around 37 and confirmed as to whether he/she was a heart or higher.

As a result of a preliminary test for the heart and the heart high frequency test, the result was that same-sex connection for the heart test, a small number of large number of large dynamic beer lines and the backs of the heart high frequency test, and abnormal completion was conducted. There is no opinion that an abnormal completion was conducted by both large-scale and both sides of the bellper test on both sides of the bellper, and the cross-frequency test was conducted on the speed limit of the blood stream of the large-scale beer, but there was no special opinion.

3) A medical team outside the prison and a medical team in compromise with anesthesia and internal medicine on the risks of surgery. The medical team had expressed that 'the risk of cardio-cerebrovascular outbreak (0.4%) to the low-risk group and that 'the risk of cardio-cerebrscular outbreak (0. 4%) to explain the risk of cardio-cerebrscular outbreak and to proceed with the surgery,' was also expressed that 'the anesthesia will lead to the overall risk of 'the overall risk of cerebrscular infection (the cardio-cerebrs disease and cerebrs disease),' caused by the age, and that 'the anesthesia will be punished even during the surgery.

4) On September 08 of the same month: Around 50, the deceased received crypology from the △△△△△△△△△△, the left-hand scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic (hereinafter “the instant operation”) and returned to the sick room at around 11:31 on the same day. On the same day, the deceased was scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic sche

5) At around 18:50 on the same day, the Deceased complained of the Austria, and the medical team laid off the self-fluoration control device, and administered the beer, which is the port soil. Since then, the Deceased did not have any further stoves and stoves, and at this time, there was no symptoms or complaints other than the appeal of the stoves and stoves between 08 and 50 on the 12th of the same month, and there was no stoves or appeals from the stoves.

6) At around 08:50 on the same day, the Deceased complained of chest and pleassing of pleassing and pleassing, and around 09:32, the Deceased still complained of the upper part of the body body pain and showed an over-proof symptoms even when he moved to a wheelchairs room. Accordingly, the medical team performed pulmonary treatment of plastic bags, and at around 09:35, at around 09, supplied 10 liters of oxygen via the mountain steke.

7) On the same day 09: 42 on the same day, the current △△△△△△△ requested cooperation in internal and internal fields by examining the deceased, conducting a twit-man test, which is an index inspector for the heart color, and injecting the vegetable salt and supplying the vegetable salt by injecting it. Around 09: 45, ○○○, etc., visited the deceased and conducted a blood test, heart test, and dynamic gas analysis test, followed by visiting the deceased at around 09: 00, and the awareness of the deceased, who was boomed, became a gradually visible condition.

8) In 09: 55, the Deceased shall expand the dynamics, show changes in consciousness, and face-to-face.

The 10: The blood pressure of the deceased was 60/40m Hg and 87mHg and oxygen was improved to 10:24% as the medical team of anesthesia and cardiopulmonary resuscitation was in arrival at around 09:58, and 10:24 caused the climatic pressure of the deceased to be 60/40mHg and 87%.

19) The A Hospital medical personnel explained to the plaintiffs the condition and necessity of intensive observation, and recommended all of the deceased to be the S Hospital, a superior hospital, and the deceased was in the emergency room at around 10:46 on the same day. At the time, the deceased was in a mixed state, was not measured both beer, respiratory, and blood pressure, and was 50% in oxygen.

10) At around 11:34 on the same day as S Hospital’s first aid, the Deceased had recovered from a diving cycle, but re-explosion had not re-explosion re-exploited and continued to engage in chronic electrical activities without reaction. At around 14:45, S Hospital medical personnel discontinued chest pressure on the Deceased. At around 15:30, S Hospital died on the Deceased.

(c) Relevant medical knowledge;

A. A. A. (1) A. (1) A. (1) A. (2) A. (2) A. (2) A. (2) A. (2) A. (3) A. (2) A. (3) A. (4) A. (4) A. (4) A. (4) A. (1) A. (1) A. (1) A. (1) A. (1) A. (1) A. (1) A. (1) A. (1) A. (2) A. (2) A. (2) A. (2) A. (2) A. (2) A. (2) A. (2) A. (2) A. (2) A. (2) A. (2) A. (3) A. (3) A. (4) A. (1) a person who has been running in the heart of the heart was running as soon as the heart was running, and (3) a person who caused the same.

【Uncontentious facts, Gap evidence 1 through 6, Eul evidence 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiffs' assertion

Since the Deceased died due to the negligence below the A Hospital and each S Hospital’s medical team, they are liable to the Plaintiffs for damages due to nonperformance as a party to a medical contract with the Deceased, or for the tort committed by the medical team as an employer of each of the above medical professionals. Accordingly, the Defendants jointly and severally shall compensate the Plaintiff for the damages due to the death of the Deceased.

(a) Negligence of a medical staff at a hospital A;

1) Violation of the duty of prediction as a result of bad faith

In the face of the heart, it was found that there was an error in the heart of the deceased in the heart of the heart, and thus, A soldier's medical team should have all of the deceased as a hospital with a medical team and facility that can confirm the problem of the heart of the deceased through an additional examination, or that he/she should have all of the deceased. It is negligent in neglecting this and conducting the instant operation.

2) Negligence in treatment with respect to symptoms of a cardiopulmonary disease

From the day of the instant operation, the Deceased complained of the heart, which is the typical symptoms of the heart disease. Since the deceased had already been verified in the pre-operation test, the deceased, if he complained of the above symptoms, he should have diagnosed the aggravation of the cardiopulmonary disease, immediately treated it, or taken all measures for it, as a medical personnel. However, there was negligence on the part of the deceased.

3) Negligence in delivery of erroneous information

The death diagnosis report issued by the S Hospital is written by the deceased’s direct private person as the pulmonary father, and there is a disease that causes the pulmonary father’s disease not the disease but the pulmonary father’s disease. The above death diagnosis is erroneous. However, this is a cause for the A Hospital to provide the deceased with wrong information as if the A Hospital did not have a heart disease. In addition, due to the above negligence of the A Hospital’s medical personnel, the S Hospital did not take appropriate measures for the heart disease of the deceased.

4) Violation of the duty to explain

A Hospital Medical Personnel did not explain to the Deceased regarding the operation before the instant surgery, and did not obtain consent from the Deceased.

(b) Fruits of the medical professionals of the S Hospital;

1) Negligence in the preparation of a death certificate

S Hospital medical personnel entered the deceased's private death directly into the death report as a pulmonary part, and the pulmonary part of the pulmonary part is not a disease, but a disease that is the symptoms and causes the disease can be diagnosed as a heart disease. Therefore, issuing a death report with the above contents is negligent.

2) Fruits in the first aid.

Medical professionals have been negligent in neglecting the information provided by A hospital, without taking appropriate measures, such as dynamic, fluoral surgery, etc., in a timely manner by reliance on only the information provided by the deceased, and overcoming the heart disease of the deceased.

3) Violation of the duty to explain

The medical professionals sufficiently explain the deceased's name of diagnosis, treatment method, the risk of treatment before and after his/her neglect, etc. to the deceased's guardian through the progress of the A Hospital and the results of its own diagnosis, and make it possible for the deceased to decide whether to receive the fluoral surgery on the deceased's tolerance.

3. Determination

A. Whether a medical team at A Hospital was negligent

1) Whether the person violated the duty of expectation as a result of the bad faith

In the inspection before the instant surgery on the deceased, the results of the same-sex beer, a small number of dynamics, the calendars and flags, and abnormal completion of the deceased are recognized as above.

However, comprehensively taking account of the records on No. 5, the results of the request for the examination and evaluation of the medical records for the head of H University ○○ Hospital and the overall purport of the arguments in this Court: (i) the medical personnel outside a hospital hospital confirmed the above results of the examination; and (ii) requested a cooperation with anesthesia on the risk of surgery; and (iii) there is no particular problem in anesthesia and internal medicine; and (iv) there is no confusion in undergoing the operation; and (v) there is a merger.

There is little possibility that they should explain the risk of cardio-cerebrovascular relationship and cerebrovascular relationship in consideration of the elderly.

In full view of the following circumstances revealed by the facts and the basis of recognition as above, namely, ① same-sex connection is realized by various physical and external factors, not only the fact that it is same-sex connection exists or is found to have a health disorder; ② The operation of this case was conducted under spinebial anesthesia, not general anesthesia, and has a low impact on heart and pulmonary function; ③ The deceased appears to have not been in a serious condition for cardiopulmonary color at the time according to the contents of the compromise between anesthesia and internal medicine; ④ the deceased’s symptoms, pathology, and special symptoms other than the elderly, as well as the fact that there was an age to the deceased, there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that the above facts alone are insufficient to acknowledge that the medical personnel of A Hospital has a duty to suspect the heart disease of the deceased and to transfer it to a specialized hospital.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

2) Negligence in treatment with respect to symptoms of a cardiopulmonary disease

A) Relevant legal principles

Medical practice is an area requiring highly specialized knowledge, and it is very difficult to find out whether a doctor has breached his/her duty of care in the course of medical practice, or there is causation between the violation of his/her duty of care and the occurrence of losses. Therefore, it is also possible to presume that the symptoms are due to medical negligence by proving the fact that there is a cause other than the medical negligence, where there is a cause other than the medical negligence. However, even in that case, it is difficult to presume that the symptoms are due to medical negligence by proving the fact that there is a cause other than the medical negligence. However, even in that case, it is difficult to predict the causal relationship between the doctor's negligence and the result by presumption of the causal relationship with the doctor's negligence and imposing the burden of proof of negligence on the doctor (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2005Da5867, May 31, 2007; 2015Da384, Oct. 38, 2015).

B) Determination

(1) At around 18:50 on May 9, 2012, the deceased’s appeal for the misunderstanding was recognized as above. However, considering the following circumstances, the deceased’s appeal for the misunderstanding was sufficient to recognize that there was any negligence on the part of the deceased, on the sole basis of the fact that the deceased’s appeal for the misunderstanding was made, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

(A) On the same day after the instant operation, the Deceased appealed on around 11:31: (a) there was no abnormal symptoms such as the stable and respiratory distress, the heart, and the mouth. At the time, the Deceased appealed on the 18:50 square meters. At the time, the Deceased was in use of a self-faculation device; and (b) the heart was the general side effect that occurred from 20 to 45% of the patients using the said control device.

B. As the Deceased complained of euthanasia, the medical team administered a beer, a port, in doubt of side effects caused by the use of a self-fluoration control device, and thereafter, the Deceased did not appeal for euthanasia until April 12, 19:09 of the same month, where the euthanasia aggravated status, and was stable after euthanasia.

(2) In addition, in full view of the purport of the description of evidence No. 5 and the purport of the entire arguments by negligence, which did not confirm the deceased’s active condition during the long-term period, a doctor prescribed that the deceased’s active condition was confirmed every 12 hours after the instant operation, and the nurse did not verify the signs of active condition of the deceased for at least 17 hours after checking around 11:0 of the same month, and on the 16:0 of the same month, the nurse did not verify the signs of active condition of the deceased for at least 17 hours until abnormal symptoms occur.

However, on the 116th day of the same month, the medical team did not confirm the active symptoms after the 00th day of the same month, and observed and confirmed the conditions of the deceased several times through a medical team, etc., and the deceased was presumed to have been alleviated the pains of the operation without a defense of the appeal company. Therefore, it is difficult to readily conclude that the medical team did not confirm the active symptoms of the deceased for at least 17 hours on the basis of the above facts alone, and even if it was negligent in the determination of the family affairs, the causal relationship between the negligence and the death of the deceased cannot be acknowledged only by the evidence submitted by the plaintiffs.

(3) In addition, it is deemed that the treatment of the deceased was inappropriate after the deceased’s scambling of 0: From 00 to 5, taking into account the following facts: (1) medical personnel showed abnormal symptoms during physical treatment, and (2) medical personnel transferred the deceased to sick room at around 0: (3) 0: 00 pambling to 4: 5: 5: 00 pambling to marculse and 9: 4: 5: 5: 1: 27: 5: 5: 5: 5: 5: 100 pambalculing to marculse and 9: 5: 40: 5: 1; 2) 409: 1; 2) 2) 3) 3) 3) 3) 3) 4 (3) 3) 3) 3) 4 (3) 4) 3) 4 (3) 4 (4) 5) 5) 3) 3) 4 (4) 5.

(4) Finally, there is no evidence to acknowledge the failure of the medical team at all to take appropriate measures while transferring the Deceased to S Hospital.

(5) Therefore, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

3) Whether there was negligence in delivery of erroneous information

The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the medical personnel at A Hospital delivered wrong information about the deceased’s condition to the S Hospital medical personnel, and there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise. Therefore, this part of the Plaintiffs’ assertion is without merit.

4) Whether the duty of explanation has been violated

In full view of the purport of Gap evidence No. 5 and all the arguments, the plaintiff No. 3, who is the deceased, may be explained about the necessity of the operation from the medical team prior to the operation of this case, anticipated mergers, ex post facto symptoms, merger certificates that may cause force majeure due to the operation, and the patient's special transfer, and may be acknowledged that the plaintiff No. 3, who is the deceased, issued an order to the written consent for the operation to the deceased.

The other party to the duty to explain is not allowed to substitute for the consent of the patient with the consent of his/her relative as long as the patient or his/her legal representative has the ability to judge as an adult (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Da13843, Oct. 29, 2015, etc.). However, according to the above quoted evidence, it is reasonable to view that the medical personnel performed the duty to explain by explaining the above matters in this case, and delegated the consent on the alcohol on behalf of the deceased, by the deceased who is the patient, to the plaintiff third, and the plaintiff third has consented to the alcohol.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

B. Whether there exists negligence in the medical professionals of the S Hospital

1) Whether there was negligence in preparing a death certificate

In full view of the purport of Gap evidence No. 4, Eul evidence No. 2, and the purport of the whole arguments and arguments, it can be acknowledged that the person directly entered the death diagnosis report on the deceased issued by S Hospital as "pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary ect.

However, the above facts and the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone are insufficient to recognize that the recording of the deceased’s private death as a kind of pulmonary death is insufficient, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise. In addition, even if the judgment was based on a different family decision, it cannot be deemed that any damage has occurred to the Plaintiffs solely on the fact that the cause of death was mistakenly stated after the deceased’s death. Thus, this part of the Plaintiffs’ assertion does not seem to have any mother or reason.

2) Whether there was negligence in the first aid.

In full view of the records in Gap evidence No. 6, this Court entrusted the examination of medical records to the head of H University ○○ Hospital at around 10:46 on May 12, 2012 and the overall purport of the arguments, ① the examination consciousness performed by the deceased at the time when he was placed in the S Hospital Emergency room at around 46: 50% on mixed water, and the delivery of mountain parcels was 50% on mixed water, ② the medical professionals continued to conduct various examinations, such as chest radiation examination, and the deceased’s voluntary circulation was restored at around 11:34, and eventually led to death, ③ the deceased’s opinion on the examination was not presented at around 11:23 times on the same day, and around 13:24: the deceased’s opinion on the pharmony, and there was no other evidence that the Plaintiffs did not suffer from pulmonary pulmonary health pressure at around 16:14, and there was no other evidence that the Plaintiffs did not suffer from pulmonary health pressure at the first instance.

3) Whether the duty of explanation has been violated

A) Even if a doctor’s duty to explain patients does not limited to the time of surgery, and it takes place at all stages of medical treatment, such as examination, diagnosis, and treatment, the doctor is obliged to pay consolation money, etc. to the doctor for breach of the above duty to explain duty to the patient. In a case where a doctor does not properly explain to the patient and an unexpected result occurs to the patient by performing surgery, etc., the doctor must explain symptoms of disease, treatment or diagnosis method, necessity, and the risk expected to occur from the disease before the act, and explain the patient’s own right to self-determination if the patient would have avoided the occurrence of a serious result by selecting whether the patient would exercise the patient’s right to self-determination. Therefore, the doctor’s explanation in this sense is not for all the medical process, but for all the surgery, etc., and it is not for the patient to be subject to the duty to explain 15 or 2, and it is not for the patient to be subject to the duty to explain, and it is not for the patient to be subject to the duty to explain 95 or 15, etc.

B) As seen above, it is insufficient to recognize that the deceased was in a critical state where he was in a congested state at the time of the S Hospital’s clinic, and the medical team took emergency measures to cause the deceased’s birth and carried out an inspection to find the cause of the emergency measures. As such, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff’s self-determination requires the deceased’s selection. The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the medical team had a duty to explain the deceased to determine whether the medical team would undergo an exorculatory surgery, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, since the plaintiffs' claim against the defendants in this case is without merit, it is decided as per Disposition by the dismissal.

Judges Lee Jong-tae

Judge Lee Jin-hun

Judges Kim Jong-soo