[1] The case denying a proximate causal relationship between the medical negligence of a doctor who did not conduct an inspection as to whether the patient complained of the unwritten evidence at the time of the medical examination after the surgery in the white site and the result of the examination

[2] The contents of the doctor's duty to explain and the case where the violation is subject to consolation money

[1] The case holding that it is difficult to conclude that the medical doctor's above medical examination was erroneous, or that the medical examination was not conducted to determine the Malitho at the time of the medical examination, and that it was not conducted to determine the Malitho, on the ground that the patient's appeal for the Malitho was filed at the time of the medical examination, but it was caused not only by the Malitho self-gy but also by the Malithum in the inner mouth, and that the Malitho was caused by the Malithum in the inner mouth and the Malitho was not caused by the patient's visual disorder at the time of the medical examination, and that the patient's failure to conduct such medical examination or the examination to determine the Malitho was a direct cause of the patient's visual disorder.

[2] The case holding that a doctor is obligated to explain the symptoms of a disease, the treatment method and necessity, the potential risk of occurrence, etc. to the patient or his/her legal representative as an obligation under a medical contract, unless there is an emergency patient or any other special circumstance, and to explain the patient's symptoms, the treatment method and necessity, the possibility of occurrence, etc. in light of the current medical level at the time, so that the patient can choose whether to receive the medical treatment or not, and on the other hand, the patient or his/her guardian has a duty to explain in detail the method of medical care and other matters necessary for the health care in order to achieve the purpose of the medical treatment, and on the other hand, in case where the patient claims consolation money for violation of his/her duty to explain due to the doctor's violation of the duty to explain due to a serious result caused by the medical act, and in case where the patient claims consolation money for violation of his/her duty to explain due to a doctor's violation of the duty to explain due to a doctor's act (the possibility of occurrence of a after-bebal surgery).

[1] Articles 390 and 750 of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 390, 750, and 751 (1) of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 94Da13046 delivered on April 26, 1994 (Gong1994Sang, 1468), Supreme Court Decision 94Da27151 delivered on April 25, 1995 (Gong1995Sang, 1939), Supreme Court Decision 94Da13046 delivered on June 25, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 2293) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 94Da3421 delivered on January 20, 195 (Gong195Sang, 885), Supreme Court Decision 93Da52402 delivered on February 10, 1995 (Gong195Sang, 1281), Supreme Court Decision 94Da19539 delivered on April 25, 1995 (Gong195Sang, 195Da195379 delivered on April 29, 1995)

Plaintiff 1 and four others (Attorney Han-ho, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff 1 and one other (Attorney Choi Jong-sik, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 95Na5433 delivered on October 11, 1995

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against each appellant.

The plaintiffs' grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

A. Summary of the reasoning of the judgment below

The facts of this case recognized by the court of first instance by admitting the judgment of the court of first instance and the summary of judgment on the plaintiffs' assertion are as follows

(1) On October 7, 191, Plaintiff 1 (hereinafter the Defendant Foundation) submitted a special medical examination to Defendant 2, who is a doctor belonging to the Defendant hospital, who is a doctor belonging to the Defendant hospital. As a result of the examination, Defendant 2 diagnosed the above Plaintiff’s right-hand eye as a 0.1 in the white eye, and the left-hand eye did not have any visual eye, but with both visual eye as a eromatic eye on October 15, 1991, and hospitalized the above Plaintiff on December 11 of the same year to conduct the above leromatic surgery by soliciting the Defendant’s right-hand eye surgery.

피고 2는 같은 해 12. 12. 위 원고에 대한 백내장 수술(수정체 제거 및 인공수정체 삽입술)을 하였는바, 그 수술은 우측 눈에 대한 국소마취를 한 후 우측 눈을 개검기를 사용하여 상하로 벌린 다음 수술현미경을 보면서 눈동자의 12시 방향 흰 자위와 검은 자위가 접한 부분(각막 윤부)을 약 6ｍｍ 가량 절개하고 수정체 껍질을 제거한 후 초음파 팁을 넣어 혼탁된 백내장을 유화흡인시키는 방법으로 진행되었는데, 이 과정에서 수정체의 후낭이 파열되어(백내장 초음파 유화흡인술 중에 수정체 후낭이 파열되는 빈도는 3% 내지 22%이다) 전부초자체절제술을 시행한 후 인공수정체는 안구의 전방에 삽입하고 절개 부위를 접합하는 방법으로 시행하였다.

After the operation in the above margin, the eyesight of the right eye of the above plaintiff was 0.5 on the 18th of the same month, which is the date of discharge, and 0.7 on the 20th of the same month, which is the date of discharge, 0.9 on February 6, 192, 0.9 on February 28, 1992, and almost 0.9 on the 28th of the same month.

그런데 위 원고는 같은 해 8. 29. 목동 안과병원에 내원하여 의사인 소외 박일원에게 눈이 부시는 현휘증상을 호소하여 위 박일원이 세극등 현미경으로 검사를 한 결과 우측 눈의 전방에 인공수정체가 삽입된 상태로 각막 내피세포의 하반부에 반점이 있었으며, 양안의 교정시력은 1.0, 양안의 안압은 18ｍｍHg로서 정상범위였는바, 위 박일원은 자신이 특별히 치료할 질환은 발견하지 못하였으나 환자가 호소하는 증상과 위 반점들이 백내장 수술과 어떠한 연관이 있는지의 감별을 위하여 위 원고에게 백내장 수술을 한 피고 병원으로의 전원을 권유하였다.

위 원고가 같은 해 8. 31. 피고 2에게 찾아와 진찰을 받은 결과 당시 위 원고의 우측 눈의 시력은 1.0으로 정상, 안압은 27ｍｍHg로서 정상보다 약간 높았는데 위 원고는 위 피고에게 눈에 무엇인가 떠 다니는 증상(비문증 증세)을 호소하였고, 이에 위 피고는 위 원고에게 위와 같은 증상은 근시가 있는 눈에 흔히 있는 것이라고 하며 그 치료를 위하여 레시돈 정제 15일분을 처방하였고, 그 밖에 위 원고의 눈에 결막염 증세가 있다고 판단하여 항생제 안약(탈리비드)을 투여하였다.

The above plaintiff's symptoms showing the view of the side in the right eye were added to the above Lespath as prescribed by the above defendant while taking the above Lespathy, and around one week after the fact that the material appears in black white, and the result of the medical examination was conducted on September 16, 19 of the above year by being inside the part of the management of the non-party scrap metal, and there was a symptoms of 0.02 in the right eye of the above plaintiff, and there was a symptoms of Maspathy. The above plaintiff recommended the above defendant to undergo the medical examination from the Espathy, but the above plaintiff rejected this.

On September 17, 199 of the same year, the above Plaintiff underwent a close inspection from both South and North Korea, which is a doctor inside the National University Yong-do Hospital. As a result, the above Plaintiff, who was diagnosed by Non-Party Lee Jae-ki, who was within the Seoul National University Hospital on the 18th day of the same month, after being diagnosed by Non-Party Lee Jae-ki, who was a doctor, after coming to the inside department of the Seoul National University University, after having been diagnosed by Non-Party Lee Jae-ki, the visual vision of the right eye in the opical eye, and the opical eye was entirely bombed, and the ophum was all bombed with a large amount of net heat in the middle direction of 10 cc from the 6th day of the ophum. However, the above Plaintiff rejected this recommendation.

On September 25, 25 of the same year, the above plaintiff was diagnosed to have been hospitalized in the Sung-Mascopic Scopic Scopic Hospital in the United States of America on September 25, 199, and was diagnosed to have been separated from the context of the right eye, and on the 28th day of the same month, he was performing the Mascopic correction operation on October 19 of the same year, and received treatment by no later than the 27th day of the same month after he returned to the Republic of Korea on the 31st day of the same month, and received treatment for hospitalization, again for the Mascopic correction, while maintaining the Mascopic treatment, and as a result of multiple surgery, each of the Mascopics for the right eye and the Mascopic correction is expected to have a visual disorder even after treatment in the future in need of future treatment.

(2) There are four kinds of routing routing routing routing routing routing, towing routing, routing routing routing routing routing, heat and towing routing routing routing routing routing routings, which may increase the generation of a post-routing routing routing routing routing routing, which may cause a move before and after routing routing routings to the beginning itself, and as a result, a routing routing routing routing routing routings may occur in the routing routing routings of the beginning, which may cause a move before and after routing routing.

At the time of a large so-called so-called so-called sacrific sacrific sacrific sacrific siffic siffic siffic siffic siffic siffic siffic siffic siffic siffic siffic siffic siffic siffic siffic siffic siffic siffic siffic siffic siffic siffic siffic siffic siffic siffic siffic siffic siffic siffic siffic siffic siffic siffic siffic siffic.

In most of the heat ruptures occur in the neighboring rupture, and thus, the early symptoms are likely to spread to the center of the rupture, so if the rupture disorder such as the rupture disorder in the nearby rupture, and the rupture rupture rupture rupture occurs, the rupture rupture and rupture rupture ruptures. In the case of the rupture rupture rupture rupture, the rupture can be normal or lowered at the early stage, and if the rupture rupture is wide progress, the

If the patient's pressure and vision are normal, and the patient does not appeal symptoms, such as luminous symptoms, non-fluorious symptoms, and surrounding vision disorders, it is not doubtful that the large rhesion is not doubtful, and when the patient appeals symptoms suspected of causing the high rupture and heat rupture, it is conducted with the euper test, the ultra-frequency test, or the rupture test when the patient appeals symptoms suspected of causing the high rupture and heat rupture and heat rupture rupture. In this case, most of the diagnosis can be conducted, but each of the above inspections is not an ordinary inspection conducted for all the patients due to its required period and expenses.

The treatment of the heat routing routing routing routing is conducted either or in parallel with the operation of the routing routing routing routing routing, the scope or degree of the routing routing routing routing routing routing, the success rate of the routing routing routing routing routing routing (routing rate) is 90% to 95% if there is no routing routing routing routing, 5% if a routing routing routing routing routing routing routing, and 35% to 70% if a routing routing routing routing routing routing routing, and the success rate of the routing routing routing routing.

(3) 원고들은 피고 2는 원고 1이 1992. 8. 31. 피고 병원에 내원하여 진찰을 받을 때 위 원고로부터 망막박리의 전형적인 증세인 현휘나 비문증 증세를 호소받고도 망막박리 여부를 판단하기 위한 검사를 하지 아니하여 위 원고로 하여금 적시에 망막박리 증세에 대한 치료를 받을 기회를 상실하게 한 과실이 있거나, 위 원고의 수술 및 진료를 담당하였던 의사로서 위 원고의 상태를 면밀히 진찰하여 그 원인과 치료 방법을 규명할 생각은 하지 아니하고 그대로 돌려 보내는 등으로 진료계약상의 의무를 다하지 아니하여 위 망막박리의 결과를 초래하였으니 불법행위책임 또는 채무불이행책임이 있다고 주장하나, 위 원고가 위 1992. 8. 31. 검진시 위 피고에게 현휘증상을 호소하였다는 사실은 인정할 증거가 없고, 위와 같이 위 원고는 백내장 수술 후 우측 눈의 시력이 1.0까지 회복되어 1992. 2. 28. 검진시까지 시력이 정상을 유지하였고, 백내장 수술 후 약 8개월이 지난 위 1992. 8. 31. 위 피고로부터 진찰을 받을 때 시력이 1.0, 안압은 27ｍｍHg로서, 오히려 안압은 정상인보다 높았으며 기타 자각증상으로서 비문증을 호소하였을 뿐이고, 망막박리의 구체적인 증상이 나타나기 시작한 것은 위 피고로부터 진찰을 받은 지 약 1주일 정도가 지난 후로서, 위 피고의 1992. 8. 31. 검진 당시 위 원고에게 망막열공 내지 박리증상이 있었는지의 여부도 단정하기 어려우므로, 비록 위 피고가 위 원고의 백내장 수술을 집도한 사실이 있다고 하더라도 위 검진 당시 망막박리 여부를 판단하기 위한 검사를 시행하지 아니한 것이 위 피고의 과실이라고 할 수 없고, 또한 위와 같은 수술과 치료의 경과에 비추어, 위 피고에게 원고들의 주장과 같은 진료계약 위반 사실이 있다거나 그 진료계약 위반과 위 망막박리의 결과 사이에 상당인과관계가 있다고 인정할 수도 없으므로 원고들의 위 주장은 모두 이유 없다.

B. Judgment on the grounds of appeal

In light of the facts duly established by the court below, the plaintiff 1 appears to have been restored to normal conditions after the operation in the above white ground. Although the above plaintiff 2 at the time of the examination of the above plaintiff on August 31, 1992, the plaintiff 2 complained of the non-written evidence, it was caused by not only in the case of the post-in-house grheat but also in the case of the post-in-house grheat, and it was 6 months after the operation, which is normally expected after the after-in-house grheat, and it cannot be viewed that the above plaintiff's medical examination cannot be seen as being caused by the post-in-house grheatary operation, such as the time of the operation, and it is difficult to conclude that the above defendant's above examination was erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, and there is no direct error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the burden of proof that the result of the examination or the inspection of the net grat.

2. The defendants' attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

A. Generally, in a case where a doctor performs a surgery to a patient and performs a medical act which is highly likely to cause adverse results thereafter, unless there is an emergency patient or any other special circumstance, a doctor has a duty under a medical contract to explain the symptoms of a disease, the contents and necessity of the treatment method and the potential risks of a disease, etc., and to allow the patient or his/her guardian to choose whether to receive the medical act by sufficiently comparing the patient's necessity or risk and by selecting whether or not he/she will receive the medical act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 93Da60953, Apr. 15, 1994; 94Da3421, Jan. 20, 195). In order to achieve the purpose of the medical treatment, a doctor has a duty to explain the patient or his/her guardian in detail the method of the medical treatment and other matters necessary for the health management and to prepare for legacy, etc. after giving a detailed explanation.

Meanwhile, even in cases where a patient claims consolation money due to his/her violation of the doctor's duty to explain due to a serious result of medical practice, the patient's serious result should be caused by medical practice (see Supreme Court Decision 94Da27151, Apr. 25, 1995).

B. The court below acknowledged that Defendant 2 did not explain to Plaintiff 1 the results of the surgery in this case before and after the surgery in this case, and did not explain the results of the surgery in this case and after and after the surgery in this case, the surgery in this case may cause a blurgary surgery before and after the surgery. In particular, the court below explained that there is a possibility that the burgary burgary burgary burgary burgary burgary burgary burgary burgary burgary burgary burgary burgary burgary burgary burgary burgary burgary burgary burgary burgary burgary burgary burgary burgary burgary burgary burgary burgary burgary burging the Plaintiffs' mental suffering.

C. The judgment of the court below is just in accordance with the above legal principles, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the duty of explanation or the duty of explanation as the object of consolation money payment as pointed out in the grounds of appeal. In addition, while the court below judged that the result of the above plaintiff's loss loss loss loss loss cannot be readily determined as a result of a mistake in the operation in the white ground of this case or after-the-counter surgery, it cannot be viewed as a contradictory relation even if the result of the above loss loss loss loss loss was recognized as a result of the operation in the white ground of this case, and it cannot be viewed as a contradictory relation, and there is no error of law in the misapprehension of the reasons as

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

Justices Lee Im-soo (Presiding Justice)