206Na2992 Damage(s)

1. AA;

2. BB

3. CCC;

Plaintiff 3 is a minor, and the legal representative BB, MaAA

4.D;

5. E;

[Defendant-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 2 others

[Defendant-Appellee]

Medical Corporations △△ Medical Foundation

Law Firm Doz.

담당변호사 , ▩▩▩

Busan District Court Decision 2005Ga3461 Delivered on February 8, 2006

may 2, 2007

April 13, 2007

1. The defendant's appeal is all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. Purport of claim

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff AA 17,518,02 won, and 5,00,000 won to the plaintiff BB, and 2,000,000 won to the plaintiff CCC, DD and EE respectively, and 5% per annum from November 22, 2004 to the date of the first instance judgment, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

2. Purport of appeal

The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked in entirety, and all plaintiffs' claims against that part shall be dismissed.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasons why a member should explain this case is that "from December 2, 2004 to December 1, 2004" is "from November 22, 2004 to December 1, 2004" for the part concerning the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, Paragraph 2 (b) (2) of Paragraph 2 of Paragraph 2 of the Reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance (No. 6 No. 20), and that "from November 22, 2004 to December 1, 2004," and that the defendant's assertion in the trial is identical to the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance except for adding the following judgments to the corresponding part, and therefore, it is cited

2. Additional matters to be determined;

A. The defendant's assertion

(1) As the Plaintiff AA had already been in the state of patitis at the time of birth to the emergency room of the Defendant Hospital, it cannot be said that there was negligence on the part of the Defendant Hospital in failing to diagnose it as patch infection.

(2) Even if the Defendant Hospital was unable to diagnose Plaintiff AA’s shocking or launchitis, it is general that the period of at least 7-10 days has been spent until the surgery was performed in the case of acute shocking or launchitis, and that the treatment performed by Defendant Hospital was appropriate for the treatment of launitis, and thus, the proximate causal relation with the negligence of Defendant Hospital or the damage suffered by Plaintiff AAA cannot be found in accordance with the method of treatment.

B. Determination

(1) The fact that Plaintiff AA had already complained of the clothes, etc. from two days before Plaintiff AA was going to the Defendant hospital, and had been treated by the knives hospital is as recognized by the court of first instance. According to the medical record appraisal request from the Korean Medical Association on January 5, 2007 and February 6, 2007, according to the medical record appraisal request from Plaintiff AAA, it can be acknowledged that Plaintiff AA had a large personal car during the time when the hives were to occur, such as the outbreak of shock and the outbreak of the hives, but it is difficult to conclude that Plaintiff AAA had already been suffering from the hives infection at the time when Plaintiff AA was to go to the Defendant hospital.

Furthermore, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments on the first instance court and the Korean Medical Association, the number of 1 to 8 symptoms (including the number of 1 to 8) and the results of the examination on the first instance court and the Korean Medical Care Association, the examination of the plaintiff 1 to 204 was conducted with the main appeal that the plaintiff 1 to 20 days before the delivery to the defendant hospital from 0th day after the first instance court and the second instance court (the 1st day after the second day after the second day after the second day after the second day after the second day after the second day after the second day after the second day after the second day after the second day after the second day after the second day after the second day after the second day after the second day after the second day after the second day after the second day after the second day after the second day after the second day after the second day after the second day after the second day after the second day after the second day after the second day after the second day after the second day after the second day after the death of the plaintiff 1 to 2.

However, according to the records, even if the defendant hospital 2 was hospitalized in the defendant hospital 2 for about 10 days, there is no evidence to view that the defendant hospital 2 suspected of being infected with acute typitis or its symptoms similar to that of the defendant hospital 2, and that there was no scopic typitis or its symptoms at the defendant hospital 2 after the 0th anniversary of the fact that the 10th day after the 1st day after the 6th day after the 10th day after the 6th day after the 1st day after the 10th day after the 1st day after the 20th day after the 1st day after the 20th day after the 1st day after the 20th day after the 1st day after the 6th day after the 1st day after the 1st day after the 1st day after the 1st day after the 1st day after the 20th day after the 1st day after the 2nd day after the 1st day after the 2nd day after the 2th day after the 2th day after the 1st day after the examination. day after the 2 day. day after the 2. day. day.

(2) The Defendant’s assertion that a period of not less than 7 to 10 days is ordinarily required until the surgery is performed in the case of acute hydropathitis or spathitis does not have any evidence to acknowledge it [the reference materials submitted by the Defendant as reference materials submitted by the Defendant are as follows: “The treatment method of acute hydropathitis (No. 2, No. 479 of the above reference materials) as stated in the “Recent Medical Cases by the Doctor and Attorney-at-Law” (No. 2, No. 479 of the above reference materials). However, in the case of astronomical hydropathitis, it does not appear to the purport that a doctor individually and specifically determines whether the patient’s physical condition is suitable for the surgery through multiple tests and does not normally require a period of not less than 7 to 710 days to the date of the surgery.

(3) Meanwhile, according to the result of the appraisal commission conducted on February 6, 2007, the defendant hospital's act of treating the plaintiff haloge, US carnete, strokee, cocon, and fladin with the plaintiff was an appropriate provision that used anti-biological medication in the country for haloge, hogenome, scoin, and scoin. However, according to the medical record appraisal entrustment conducted by the court of first instance on October 15, 2005 against the Korean Medical Association of the court of first instance, the defendant hospital's act of treating the plaintiff A's acute fladinitis mainly with the symptoms of the plaintiff AA, while the defendant hospital's act of treating the plaintiff fladinitis or the fladin infection caused by this act, it can be acknowledged that the defendant hospital's act of giving preferential consideration to the defendant's act of treating the plaintiff fladinum fladume, and it is not doubtful that it did not treat only before surgery or treatment.

3. Conclusion

In full view of all the circumstances revealed in the facts found in the first instance and the trial, it is reasonable to 80% of the amount of damages that the defendant is liable for. If so, the plaintiffs' claims in this case are partially reasonable, and each of the remaining claims shall be dismissed as it is without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the first instance is justified as it is so decided as per Disposition by the defendant's appeal.

The presiding judge, junior judge and assistant judge

Judges Kim Jong-young

Judge Jeong-young