[1] Whether the symptoms can be presumed to be medical negligence by proving indirect facts that cannot be deemed to have any other reason than medical negligence in the event of symptoms causing a serious result to a patient during or after an operation (affirmative) and the limitation thereof where the symptoms may be presumed to be medical negligence (affirmative)

[2] The case affirming the judgment below which found it difficult for Gap to acknowledge that Eul's spawn infection was caused by infection or contamination of hospital Eul's medical team due to the medical team of hospital Eul, such as neglecting disinfection or spawn operation, in case where Eul was diagnosed as spawn hepatitis after approximately four days after receiving brain spawn surgery from 4 days after spawn, and thereafter was diagnosed as spawn infection

[1] Article 750 of the Civil Act, Article 288 of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Article 750 of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2002Da45185 Decided October 28, 2004 (Gong2004Ha, 1929) Supreme Court Decision 2008Da22030 Decided December 10, 2009

Plaintiff 1 and four others (Attorneys Seo Young-gu et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Medical Corporations, Jinjin Medical Foundation (Law Firm Hong, Attorney Oi-do et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2010Na88912 decided October 25, 2011

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Medical practice is an area requiring highly specialized knowledge, and it is very difficult for a general person, who is not an expert, to clarify whether he/she has violated the duty of care in the course of medical practice, or whether there exists causation between the violation of the duty of care and the occurrence of damage. Therefore, it is also possible to presume that the symptoms occur to a patient by proving indirect facts other than the medical malpractice in the event of symptoms causing serious damage to a patient during the surgery or after the surgery. However, even in such a case, it is difficult to presume that the symptoms occur due to medical negligence by proving indirect facts other than the medical negligence. However, even in such a case, it is not permissible to estimate the causal relationship between the doctor's negligence and the result by presumed the causal relationship with the doctor's negligence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Da45185, Oct. 28, 2004; 2008Da2030, Dec. 10, 2009).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that it is difficult to recognize that Plaintiff 1’s protoposis was infected or affected by germs by the Defendant’s medical team’s negligence, such as Plaintiff 1’s negligence in disinfection or rupture in the process of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of facts against the rules of evidence, or in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the apportionment of the burden of proof in the medical malpractice lawsuit, as otherwise alleged in the

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Yong-deok (Presiding Justice)