The case recognizing a doctor's medical malpractice in the event that the patient failed to notify the first diagnosis of the fact, and the doctor failed to provide medical treatment to the patient despite the fact that there was a sufficient reason to suspect other illness by the result of the examination thereafter.

The case holding that even if the patient did not notify the first doctor of the fact that he did not know of the fact that he was the cause of pain, and merely notified the patient's excessive drinking, and caused the doctor to put the patient's sick name into an extract infection, the patient's medical doctor could have been suspected of overion by the result of X-ray photographing, and that the doctor was negligent in the patient's death in the process of overion, and that the patient's negligence was 40% of the patient's death who did not inform of the fact that he did not inform of the fact that he was the cause of overion.

Article 750 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff 1 and two others (Attorney Kim Gi-hoon et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Attorney Lee Won-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

5. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 the amount of 38,954,045 won, the amount of 24,169,363 won per annum from June 4, 1995 to October 31, 1997, and the amount of 25 percent per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

6. Each of the plaintiffs' remaining claims is dismissed.

7. The costs of the lawsuit are five-minutes and two are assessed against the plaintiffs, and the remainder are assessed against the defendants.

8. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 the amount of 64,923,408 won, the amount of 40,282.272 won per annum from June 4, 1995 to the service date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and the amount of 25 percent per annum from the next day to the full payment date.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

(a) Facts of recognition;

Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 8 (the same as Eul evidence 1), Eul evidence 9 (the same as Eul evidence 18), Eul evidence 2-5 through 22, Eul evidence 3-1, 6, 7, 8, 23, Eul evidence 4-2, 3, and 4-4, the testimony of non-party 1 and the testimony of non-party 1 and the testimony of non-party 1's head of the National University of University and the head of the Yongsan Hospital affiliated with the National University of University of Korea, and the result of the entrustment of the additional examination of November 22, 1996 to the head of the same hospital as the result of the entrustment of the additional examination of the head of the hospital on April 3, 1997 and the fact inquiry of August 5 of the same year, the whole purport of arguments can be acknowledged as follows, and the whole purport of arguments is not reflected.

(1) Nonparty 1 is his wife, Plaintiff 2 and 3 who were receiving treatment at Defendant Hospital. Nonparty 1 is his wife, Plaintiff 2 and Nonparty 2 is his own child, and Nonparty 2 is the doctor on duty at Defendant Hospital at that time, Nonparty 2 is the doctor on duty at Defendant Hospital, and the doctor in charge at Defendant Hospital.

(2) Around 18:40 on June 2, 1995, Nonparty deceased 1 and her drinking with Nonparty 3, who had her body sleeped from Nonparty 3 at the end of the so-called sleep and had her body slicked to the Defendant Hospital on the same day, and had her slicked with her body.

(3) However, the non-party deceased and the plaintiff 1 accompanied by the plaintiff 1 (hereinafter only referred to as the "the plaintiff's side") notified the non-party 1 at the time of internal investigation only that the non-party 1, who was aware that the non-party 1 was drinking only on the day when the non-party 1 got a large amount of normal drinking alcohol, and the plaintiff 1 complained of the total pain of the uniforms. As such, the non-party 1 diagnosed the disease of the non-party 1 as a acute dystrophy or alcohol disease, removed the internal gas accordingly. The non-party 1, after prescribing medication such as scopon and fire extinguishing agents, took a medication, took a chest and scopon X-ray (hereinafter referred to as the "the first X-ray shooting"), and hospitalized the non-party 1 in the general hospital around 23:10 on the same day.

(4) However, the non-party 1 prescribed that the non-party 1 would injecte the de facto string, as the deceased constantly complained of the re-issuance card, and did not provide any treatment even though the non-party 1 had the de facto x-ray photograph again around 07:0 on June 3, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the "the second X-ray photograph") and the above (the second X-ray photograph), on the following day.

(5) Nevertheless, the non-party 2, the doctor in charge of the treatment of the non-party deceased, who was transferred from the above non-party 1 to the patient room on the same day, around 09:45 on the same day, ordered the non-party 1 to move the non-party 2 to the patient room, and to check the non-party 2's death (Viital blood pressure, beer, body temperature, etc.) once a hour after the part-time test was conducted on the part of the non-party 1, and the non-party 2 instructed the nurse to check the non-party 2's death. The non-party 2 administered the blood pressure and the amount of the non-party 2's blood pressure so as to fall short of the blood pressure of the deceased and did not provide any medical treatment. However, the non-party 2, the doctor in charge of the non-party 1, who was hospitalized in the above hospital and the non-party 1, was hospitalized in the emergency room, and the amount in the mouth is high, and the surgery can not clearly discovered due to gas.

(6) However, since the non-party deceased showed symptoms such as beer, empty, and high heat from the same day, and the condition of the non-party deceased's symptoms such as beer, such as beer, hye, and rheat were not improved, the plaintiff 1 renounced treatment at the defendant hospital, from 15:40 on the same day to 16:35 on the same day, and transferred the non-party deceased's name to the Donginnam-dong Hospital located in Gangnam-dong, Gangseo-si, and transferred the non-party deceased to the non-party 4 and the non-party 5, who is a doctor of the above hospital, after being diagnosed as having been diagnosed as having been diagnosed as having been diagnosed as having been caused by a fladism due to a long-wave, and transferred the name of the non-party deceased to the nearest defendant hospital at the time of the plaintiff's residence at around 20:4

(7) On June 4, 1995, the deceased died at the Defendant Hospital around 01:44 on the following day, and as a result of the autopsy, the non-party deceased was found to have died from the shock by generating diverse incule, as the contents in the form of an inculatory heat caused by the external wound into the hume bar.

(8) In the case of length heat and dypitis, the pains of the whole uniforms are common symptoms, which are not easy to distinguish between them at the beginning, but in the case of the deceased, unlike the latter, the remaining in the case of the latter, the chest X-ray of the clothes to the chest X-ray to the upper part of the clothes (free gass: the condition where the gas in the head is out of the head due to the latent, etc.) are characterized by free gas (free gas: the condition where the gas in the head is out of the head due to the latent, etc.) and the upper part of the uniforms. In such a case, it is necessary to conduct an urgent experimental pening and accurately identify the heat, and prevent the hemopic transfusions that may be caused by the head of the facility. In the case of the deceased, the above free gas was not discovered at the time of the first X-ray, but it was found at the time of the second X-ray.

B. Whether the defendant hospital was negligent

In light of the above facts, the doctor on duty who first diagnosed the deceased and the above non-party 2, who was a doctor in charge of the treatment of the non-party deceased from the next day, has taken over the treatment of the non-party deceased's disease, even though the symptoms of the non-party deceased were not friendly, and at least the non-party 2 X-ray was found in a favorable gas which is the characteristic feature of the high-frequency heat, so the above symptoms were found to be doubtful by the high-frequency, and in such a case, even if the blood pressure of the non-party 1, who was the patient, was somewhat low, and the treatment of the non-party 2, who was the doctor in charge of the treatment of the non-party 1, the treatment of the non-party 2, the treatment of the non-party 1, the patient, maintained the operation in a state where it was possible, and the treatment of the non-party 2, who did not have any suspicion of the non-party 1's first salphying and preventing the treatment of the deceased's.

Therefore, since the above non-party 1 and 2's joint negligence caused the death of the non-party deceased, the defendant hospital, the employer of the above non-party 1 and 2, is liable to compensate all damages suffered by the non-party 1 and the plaintiffs due to the accident of this case.

(c) whether to exempt and limit liability;

The defendant hospital, on the ground that the early symptoms of strophy and strophyitis were similar to those of the above 1 and the above 2 concealed the above strophy, so it was impossible for the plaintiff to diagnose the accurate name of the deceased. In the event that there was a unique symptoms of strophy, the plaintiff had been late in conducting the operation, but the plaintiff could make it impossible for the plaintiff to more worse the condition of the deceased and make it impossible for the deceased to do the operation. Thus, the plaintiff did not notify the above 1 and 2 of the strophy, because it was inevitable for the plaintiff to strophy and delayed operation, and the plaintiff 1 was not allowed to have all of the above strophye during about 15:40 on June 3, 1995, and the plaintiff 1 was not allowed to have all of the above strophye hospital for about 15:0 on the day when the strophye 10 on the day of the above strophy.

However, the plaintiff's negligence that did not inform the above non-party 1 of the fact that he did not know that he was the cause of the pain at the time of the plaintiff's visit to the defendant hospital, and such negligence was the cause of the occurrence and expansion of the damage caused by the misunderstanding of the above non-party 1 and 2. Therefore, in calculating the amount of damages to be compensated by the defendant hospital, it shall be considered in calculating the amount of damages to be compensated by the defendant hospital, but it shall be reasonable to 40% in

Therefore, the liability of the defendant hospital for the plaintiffs who are in communal living relationship with the deceased and their family members is limited to the remaining 60% portion except for the above negligence ratio.

2. Scope of damages.

(a) Actual income:

The loss of lost income equivalent to the monetary total assessment value of the capacity of the deceased lost due to the instant accident is KRW 103,487,954, which is limited to the part claimed by the plaintiffs, based on the following facts and assessment based on the method of deducting intermediary interest at the rate of 12 percent per month pursuant to the method of deducting intermediary interest at the rate of 12 percent per month as of the time of the death of the deceased.

(1) Facts and evaluation of recognition

In full view of Gap evidence No. 1, Gap evidence No. 2, Gap evidence No. 10-1, No. 10-2, Gap evidence No. 11-1, and No. 11-2, the whole purport of the arguments is as follows: the non-party deceased was a male who was born on October 16, 1962 and his age was 32 years and 7 years at the time of the death, the life expectancy was 38.11 years, and he was living in the city area at the beginning of the city at that time, and as the plaintiffs sought, the city daily wage for adult male around June 1995, which was around the date of death, was 27,218 won per day, and around September 196, the same wage was 34,05 won per day, and around September 1, 1997, the non-party deceased was 35,932 won per day, and the non-party 1-party 2 and the deceased's daily income was 10-day.

(2) mountain.

When calculating the lost income of the deceased during 27 years and 4 months from the date of death until he/she reaches the age of 60 (a days less than a month) as the maximum working age, the following (hereinafter the same shall apply):

(A) 15 months from the date of death until September 3, 1996

Gold 27,218 won ¡¿ 22 days ¡¿ 2/3 ¡¿ 14.5205 = Gold 5,796,544 won

(B) 12 months from the next day to September 3, 1997

Gold 34,005 won ¡¿ 22 days ¡¿ 2/3 ¡¿ 25.538-14.5205) = gold 5,493,70 won.

(C) 301 months from the following day to the age of 60;

Gold 35,932 won 】 22 days 】 (2/3 】 (206.4673-25.5358) = gold 95,351,382 won.

(D) The sum of the amounts of paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) above is KRW 106,641,696, or gold KRW 103,487,954, as claimed by the Plaintiffs.

(b) Funeral expenses.

The fact that Plaintiff 1 paid KRW 2,00,000 to Plaintiff 1 does not dispute between the parties.

C. Limitation on liability

As stated in the above 1. b above, since the ratio of liability is 60%, the actual income which the Defendant hospital is responsible for is KRW 62,092,772 (gold KRW 103,487,954 x 60/100). Funeral expenses are KRW 1,200,000 (gold KRW 2,00,000 x 60/100).

(d) Condolence money;

In light of the age, family relation, property, and educational degree of the deceased, the background of the death, the degree of negligence on the part of the victim, and other various circumstances shown in the argument of this case, the consolation money of the deceased is set at KRW 12,00,000, and the consolation money of the plaintiff 1 is set at KRW 6,000,000, and KRW 3,000,000, respectively.

(e) Inheritance relationship;

The above lost income and consolation money of the deceased were inherited by the plaintiff 1, who is the property inheritor due to the death of the deceased, 31,754,045 won [3/7 of 62,092,772 won + 12,00,000 won] x 3/7 of 21,169,363 won [2,169,72 won + 12,00,000 won + 12,00,000 won] x 2/7 of 2/7 of 3.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the defendant hospital's 38,954,045 won (the inherited expenses + KRW 31,754,045 + the funeral expenses + KRW 6,000,000) and 24,169,363 won (the inherited expenses + KRW 21,169,363 + KRW 3,00,000) respectively to the plaintiff 1, and the defendant hospital's 24,169,363 won (the inherited expenses + KRW 21,169,363 + KRW 3,00,000) as of June 4, 1995, which is the date of death of the non-party deceased, that the defendant hospital claims about the existence and scope of its performance obligation, and the remaining claims for delay payment shall be dismissed within the limit of 25,000 per annum of the Civil Act, which is the date following the judgment of the court below, and the remaining claims for delay payment shall be made within the limit of 25,000 per annum per annum.

Judges' profit margin (Presiding Judge)