beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, the judgment of the court of first instance is cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure
The first instance judgment Nos. 6 to 17 states, “However, there is a lack of evidence to acknowledge that the above action guidelines have been implemented in the Plaintiff Hospital from July 2016 as the Plaintiff’s assertion,” which read, “However, it is insufficient to recognize that the fact inquiry results with respect to the Medical Institution Evaluation Accreditation Accreditation Board of this Court alone have been conducted in the Plaintiff Hospital from July 2016 as the Plaintiff’s assertion.”
Part 8 of the judgment of the first instance shall be added to the following:
The result of the request for appraisal by the appraiser J of this Court (hereinafter referred to as "the result of the request for appraisal by the J") is called.
According to the above, the appraiser J presented an opinion to the effect that the deceased could not have died if the operation had been performed during the period of the operation due to the delay of brain damage and cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral dys. However, each inquiry reply to I Hospital was based on the symptoms, active dys, etc. after the death of the deceased, and the result was based on the presumption of the type and degree of the operation of cerebral dys of the deceased. On the other hand, the results of the appraisal entrustment to J presented a general opinion that the possibility of death would be lower if the operation was performed at an early stage due to brain damage and cerebral dyssis. Further, the Plaintiff cannot be evaluated as evidence to the deceased from around April 30, 2017 to around October 30, 2017.