[1] The standard for determining whether there is a presumption of medical negligence in the event of a subsequent disability caused by medical practice

[2] The case holding that, in the event of damage to the crypians recognized as a general complication during the process of implementing the crypary gypology, etc. by the crypians, the negligence of the surgery doctor may be recognized, if the damage to the crypians was

[1] In the event of a disability caused by medical practice, unless the symptoms were exceeded generally recognized in light of the content and procedure of medical practice, the process of operation, the degree and degree of merger, the level of medical care at the time, and the degree of care of the medical personnel in charge, etc., in a case where the disability caused by the pertinent medical practice could be caused by a merger of the pertinent medical practice process or by the combination thereof, even if the best measure was taken at the time of the occurrence of the disability, barring any circumstance where the symptoms were deemed to have been exceeded generally recognized in light of the content of medical practice, it cannot be presumed that the occurrence of the disability by itself was negligent in the course of medical practice.

[2] The case holding that since, in the event of the implementation of a quality-oriented scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic sche

[1] Article 750 of the Civil Act / [2] Article 750 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff 1 and three others (Attorney Lee Jong-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 Medical Corporation and one other (Law Firm Seo-gu, Attorneys Lee Jae-do et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Daejeon High Court Decision 2006Na768 Decided October 10, 2007

The part of the judgment below against the Defendants is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Daejeon High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

A physician has a duty of care to take the best measures required to prevent danger depending on the patient's specific symptoms or circumstances in light of the nature of the duties of managing the patient's life, body, and health, and such duty of care shall be determined on the basis of the level of medical practice performed in the clinical medicine field such as medical institutions at the time of the medical practice (see Supreme Court Decision 9Da66328 delivered on July 7, 200).

Therefore, in the event of a subsequent disability caused by medical practice, unless the symptoms were exceeded generally recognized, the fact that the subsequent disability was caused cannot be presumed to have been negligent in the course of medical practice in light of the content of medical practice, the process of procedure, the occurrence and degree of merger, the medical level at the time, and the degree of advanced medical personnel’s advanced training, etc., in a case where the subsequent disability could be caused by the combination of medical practice in question, or could be caused by the combination of the two, even if the best measures were to be taken at the time of the medical practice.

In light of the records, it can be seen that, in the event of the implementation of the laparary laparary laparing surgery and the removal of the laparary laparing laparing surgery, it may be caused by direct damage or heat damage to the lapar with a general merger certificate, and if the laver is serious, the possibility increases. Thus, even if Defendant 2 caused damage to the laparing officer in the process of performing the above operation to the Plaintiff 1 with a serious laver laver laver laver laver laver laver laver laver laver laver laver laver laver laver laver laver laver laver laver laver laver laver laver laver laver laver laver laver laver laver laver laver laver laver laver laver laver laver laver laver la, the above Defendant's negligence la laver laver laver laver laver laver laver laver la.

Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the part of the judgment below against the Defendants is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Ill-sook (Presiding Justice)