Plaintiff (Attorney Shin-ho et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and one other (Law Firm Il-il et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

May 26, 2016

Jeonju District Court Decision 2013Da4158 Decided February 11, 2015

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against Defendant ○ University Hospital, equivalent to the money ordered to be paid below, shall be revoked.

The Defendant ○ University Hospital shall pay to the Plaintiff 328,042,401 won with 5% interest per annum from July 12, 2003 to July 21, 2016, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendant 1 and the remaining appeal against the defendant ○ University Hospital are dismissed, respectively.

3. The costs of appeal between the Plaintiff and Defendant 1 shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and 65% of the total costs of the lawsuit between the Plaintiff and Defendant ○ University Hospital shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by Defendant ○ University Hospital, respectively.

4. The portion of payment of the amount under paragraph (1) may be provisionally executed.

The part concerning the Defendants in the judgment of the first instance is revoked. The Defendants jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff 1,022,385,427 won and the amount calculated by applying 5% per annum from July 11, 2003 to July 25, 2013, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The relationship between the plaintiff and the defendants

Co-Defendant 1 of the first instance trial is an intention to operate the △△△△ Hospital (hereinafter “Defendant 1’s member”). Defendant 1 is a doctor who operated Defendant 1’s family council (hereinafter “Defendant 2’s council member”). Defendant 2 is an employer of Nonparty 2, Nonparty 3, and Nonparty 4 who treated the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff was given the following medical treatment from the Defendants around July 2003, when he was a female (date of birth omitted) who was a child of △△△△△△.

B. Medical treatment of the co-defendant 1 in the first instance trial

On July 11, 2003, at around 7:50, the Plaintiff argued that the upper part of the upper part of the body, the pain, and the minor two parts of the body of the body of the Defendant 1 were from July 10, 2003. Nonparty 1 diagnosed the Plaintiff’s sick name as a day-to-day calendar (fluorial disease) which is not otherwise classified by the Plaintiff’s sick name, and then prescribed Bossen’s judgment, Tas-gu 650 mix, Tas-gu alle, Massen’s alle (two days in total, three times in total, two days in total, and two days in total), and Liber’s algos and algos. The disease and the treatment medicine are related to disguised related symptoms.

C. Medical treatment of Defendant 1

On July 12, 2003, the Plaintiff complained of heat, clothes, rototos (three occasions of eating the chill), etc., and Defendant 1 diagnosed the name of the Plaintiff’s disease with non-chronitis and chronitis, acute organ infection, area, and Gutos, and provided the Plaintiff with the 4mmmm of e-mail of the e-mail, DNA e-mail (1st, one day, two times a day, two days a day, two days a day), 500m of tele-ray, 50m of the e-mail, e-mail, e-mail, e-mail, DNA, e-mail, e-mail, e-mail, e-mail, e-mail, e-mail, e-mail, e-mail, e-mail, and e-mail. Of the treatment products, the Plaintiff’s name is used in treating the e-mail and e-mail.

D. Medical treatment of Defendant ○ University Hospital

1) The Plaintiff had symptoms, such as having been diversized in Defendant 2’s members, having been diversized in the house, having been diversized by blood, and having been diversized. At around 13:00, the Plaintiff had symptoms, such as having failed to occur even if his parents want to shoulder, and failed to properly sound.

2) Around 15:00 on July 12, 2003, the Plaintiff’s parent asked Defendant 1 to call the above symptoms, and Defendant 1 asked Defendant 1 to visit the emergency room of Defendant ○ University Hospital to the effect that Defendant 1 did not contact the above contents, and the Plaintiff appears to have contacted Defendant 1 with the emergency room of Defendant ○ University Hospital, and that he did not have any other contact with the above contents. However, Defendant 1 asserted that Defendant 1 did not contact the above contents, but Defendant 1 did not contact with Defendant 1, on the 3th page of the transitional date (Evidence A-5).

3) On July 12, 2003, around 17:50 on July 12, 2003 and around 13:00 on the same day, the Plaintiff was in the emergency room of the Defendant ○ University Hospital. At the time of arrival in an emergency room, the Plaintiff’s body temperature was 36.4°C at the time of arrival, 124 / 124 / 28 / brea, and the Plaintiff’s medical examination was conducted on the part of the guardian’s past and present symptoms.

A) Around July 10, 2003, the Plaintiff scams. On the same day, the Plaintiff scams and scams around 3, and there was minor heat and scams.

B) On July 11, 2003, the Plaintiff received treatment with Defendant 1’s internal charge.

C) The Plaintiff filed a complaint with Defendant 2 on the day ( July 12, 2003).

D) The Plaintiff did not have any heat, but did not have any heat, and there was symptoms that there were symptoms of the old soil, although there was no heat, a mustache, a mustache, a guest room, a heart, a snow shed, and there was no change, and that there was a symptoms of the old soil during the last two to three days.

4) The Plaintiff received emergency treatment with a child thereafter, and the following past history and symptoms were examined as a result of the treatment.

A) There is symptoms that the Plaintiff was separated from the Plaintiff and that the horses were divided. The time of birth is 13:00 on the day ( July 12, 2003) and this is after the Mexico’s injection.

(b) have been treated at the general meeting of the members for three days ago due to symptoms of disguised infection and appeal for clothes.

C) Although there was a heat, there was an oral symptoms, there was no two symptoms, cryp, cocogens, guestis, respiratory difficulty, pulmona, pulmona, and urology, and the conditions of oral intake and urology are as follows.

(d) In the case of two copies testing, there is no prone ties, there is no prone flacing, there is no raculation, and there is no racing flacing which would be normal and promoted.

E) In the case of chest testing, pulmonary drinking is not clean and unbrupted and heartly boomed.

F) In the case of a dummy prosecutor, the dummy, flat, and the dummy foods are common and no pressure exists, and there is no dummy that is promoted.

G) There is no anything wrong with the gymnasium, the reaction of the gymnasium is cultivated, there is no gymnasium, and the gymnasium cannot be measured with respect to physical activity.

H) The food condition is the state of flag [this, the Plaintiff submitted a translation of the food condition at the bottom of No. 6-5 (N.S.) No. 6-5 (M. 6) into a mixed state. At the bottom of No. 6-5 No. 3 of the evidence No. 6, the content of the Plaintiff’s statement on the food condition at the bottom of No. 6-5 was deleted in such a way as to make it impossible to identify the original contents on several occasions, and it was indicated above as dowy. However, it is insufficient to readily conclude that Defendant ○ University Hospital made an ex post facto manipulation of the Plaintiff’s food condition, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this. However, in light of the fact that the Plaintiff was showing symptoms such as the Plaintiff’s failure to see the Plaintiff’s body and the Plaintiff was unable to measure the Plaintiff’s physical nature at the time of the emergency room at around 13:00 on the day of the emergency room, it appears that the Plaintiff’s food condition appears considerably out of the Plaintiff’s food condition.

I) At the general level (Defendant 2’s won), it was confirmed that Mexico drugs were administered with disguised infections. As to this, the content of “0.5 p.m. twice a day” and “two times a day” are also stated in the following: (a) the contact was received at least three p.m.; (b) the content of “0.5 p.m. twice a day”; and (c) the content of “two times a day”.

(j) Medical opinions are as follows:

(1) Trackary extra prize

(b) Bribe infection;

(c) cerebral chymosis;

k) Meanwhile, among the items of inspection printed in the same letter as the flux, the bruski and brug signs are also included, but there are no indications in each of the above items of inspection differently from other items of inspection.

5) The medical personnel at ○○ University Hospital had the Plaintiff, who arrived at an emergency room as above, 2 liter/ minutes of the oxygen 2 liter, and 5% of the spores per spores spores spores spores spores.

6) 원고는 2003. 7. 12. 19:00경 체온이 38℃, 맥박이 120회/분, 호흡이 30회/분으로 발열이 있었고, 이에 피고 ○○대학교병원 의료진은 같은 날 19:10경 원고에게 해열제인 범피린 1.16㏄를 정맥주사하였고, 항생제인 오구멘틴을 8시간 간격으로 정맥주사하도록 처방하였다.

7) 원고는 2003. 7. 12. 22:30경 경련 증상은 아니나 손을 약간 떠는 증상을 보였고, 피고 ○○대학교병원의 의사 소외 2는 원고에게 진정제인 바리움 1.8㏄의 정맥주사를 처방하였고, 산소 2ℓ/분을 흡인하게 하였으며, 이후 원고의 손을 떠는 증상은 없어졌다.

8) 원고는 2003. 7. 13. 2:00경 경련 없이 잠을 자고 있는 것이 관찰되었으나, 같은 날 7:00경 체온이 39℃, 맥박이 110회/분, 호흡이 30회/분으로 발열이 있었으며, 이에 피고 ○○대학교병원 의료진은 원고에게 해열제인 범피린 1.16㏄를 정맥주사하였다.

9) On July 13, 2003, around 7:20 on 7:20, the Plaintiff sent a large quantity of urology to the bet. Although there was an increase or decrease in pain, the Plaintiff showed symptoms beyond a new boundary that does not comply with the medical doctor’s instructions, and there was a colon, but food was mixed.

10) On July 13, 2003, the medical doctor non-party 2 of the ○○ University Hospital diagnosed the Plaintiff at around 7:30, and conducted a brain recovery test through the person who is in need of recommendation, and confirmed that the lethal lethal was increased at around 7:59 on the same day, and at around 8:00 on the same day, the lethal lethic 1,500 cent of the celethic celethic celethic celethic celethic celethic celethic celethic celethic celethic celethic celethic celethic celethic celethic celethic celethic celethic celethic celethic celethic celethic celethic celethic celethic celethic ce.

11) At around 11:00 on July 13, 2003, Defendant ○ University Hospital medical personnel moved the Plaintiff to a middle-patient, and then conducted brain mRI to the Plaintiff. On the same day, Nonparty 4 explained to the Plaintiff’s guardian on the same day that the Plaintiff’s name was suspected of being brain infected, and the Plaintiff’s name was treated accordingly, and that there was a possibility of death.

12) On the same day, the Plaintiff was diagnosed with the symptoms of brain infection and acute malutism, and continued to receive medical treatment at Defendant ○ University Hospital. On July 21, 2003, the Plaintiff was given medical treatment for 40 days by transferring the same to ○ University Hospital.

13) Since September 22, 2003, the Plaintiff received 11 week rehabilitation treatment from the rehabilitation medical department of ○ University Hospital (RM and re-altile), and continued to receive rehabilitation treatment from the National Rehabilitation Center from October 26, 2004, but became disabled.

E. The plaintiff's cerebral disease and legacy

1) On July 13, 2003, Defendant ○ University Hospital: (a) on July 13, 2003, it was recognized that the left-hand side of the award and the middle-hand brain disease of the Plaintiff without any opinion of transfusion; (b) on the basis of the dystrophism or infection, the dystrophism of the brain dystrophism or the dystrophism of the award department; (c) on August 16, 2003, there was a view that there was a high possibility of the dystrophism such as acute dystrophism, which was implemented by ○ University Hospital on June 13, 2014, the possibility of the dystrophism was high; (d) on June 13, 2014, at B-MI Hospital Hospital, there was a serious decline between brain and cerebral brain dystrophism; and (d) whether there was a maltrophical opinion of the left.

2) The Plaintiff suffered permanent disability (hereinafter “instant disability”) such as a fluoral fluor, strong, verbal disability, or excessive behavior, etc., due to the cerebral Sphere’s aftermathy as above.

(f) Relevant medical knowledge;

(i) relationship between the definition of brain infection and brain resistant infection;

(A) basic definitions;

Brain is a disease that is different from a cerebral dysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysys

B) The use of terms

In general, the term "brain salt, cerebral hepatitis", which is used in clinical terms, is used in the sense that it includes brain or cerebral mathyitis.

C) the difference between brain infection and cerebral mathy infection and common points;

(i)Basic differences and common points

The basic difference between brain infection and brain spathy infection is different from the spathic location where the disease occurs, and the cause and the weather of the disease are similar.

Domen Whether there is a difference in the method of examination

In the early diagnosis of the Central Rain-CT infectious disease, it is common diagnosis method and in the case of brain infection, it is also a common diagnosis method to test the brain amount and to help brain wave in the case of brain infection, and it can be a positive process to measure special resistance/resistant body due to brain self-recogncy test or blood test.

【【Displacement on Treatment Method】

There may be differences in the treatment method depending on the type of infection caused by the disease, but there is no difference in the treatment principle for the mid-term infection disease.

m. The difference and common point after the towing

In general, there is a permanent damage to brain in the middle-sea border and dystrophism caused by damage to brain cells, and caused by cerebral cells, and thus, cerebral dystrophism is at a higher level than cerebral dystrophyitis. As cerebral dystrophy is a disease with a higher rate of death and disability, the probability of recovery can be increased and the disability can be minimized. However, some causes are difficult to overcome due to the current medical diagnosis or treatment.

(ii) the cause for brain infection;

뇌염은 원인에 따라 감염성, 혈관염성, 종양성, 화학성, 특발성 등으로 크게 분류할 수 있고 가장 흔한 뇌염은 감염성 뇌염이다. 바이러스 뇌염의 가장 흔한 원인균은 단순포진 바이러스이며 그 외 아르보 바이러스, 수두 대상포진 바이러스, 엡스타인바 바이러스(Epstein-Barr virus), 거세포 바이러스, 일본 뇌염 바이러스 등 많은 바이러스가 원인이 될 수 있다. 박테리아성 뇌염은 헤모필루스 인플루엔자, 네이세리아 뇌염균, 폐렴구균이 산발성 뇌염의 75%를 차지하며 어른에서는 리스테리아균이 그 다음으로 흔하다. 뇌농양, 두부외상, 뇌수술 등과 관련하여 2차적으로 발생하는 뇌염의 경우는 황색 포도상 구균과 그룹 A와 D 연쇄상 구균이 관련성이 높으며, 신생아의 경우 대장균, 그룹 B 연쇄상 구균이 흔하다. 드물게는 살모넬라, 시겔라, 클로스트리다움, 임균 등이 원인균으로 가능하다. 그 외 아급성 및 만성 반복성 뇌염의 원인균으로는 결핵성, 곰팡이성 및 노카르디아, 인간면역결핍 바이러스(HIV) 등이 있다. 감염성 뇌염 외에 혈관 염증성에 의한 사코이도시스 뇌염, 루프스성 뇌염, 베게너 육아종증 뇌염, 베체트병(Behcet disease)과 관련된 뇌염과 종양성, 화학성 뇌염 등이 있다.

(iii) symptoms of brain infection;

뇌염의 증상은 두통, 발열, 오한, 구토, 의식 저하, 혼미, 외안구근 마비, 시력 저하, 경련 발작 등이 있을 수 있고, 원인질환 및 병변의 위치에 따라 정도의 차이를 보이며, 여러 가지 신경학적 이상이 있을 수 있다. 가장 흔한 바이러스 감염(무균성) 뇌막염의 경우 발병하기 수일 전 고열과 전체적으로 지속되는 두통을 호소하며 오심과 구토를 동반하기도 하는 증상이 5~7일 가량 지속되며 뇌수막염으로 인해 고개를 숙일 시 통증이 유발되며 목이 뻣뻣한 수막자극 증후가 관찰되는 경우가 많다. 이는 비교적 양성의 질환으로 통증조절 등의 보존적인 치료 시 열이 떨어지고, 두통도 호전되며, 추가적으로 척수천자를 시행하였을 때 염증정도가 호전되는 양상을 보인다. 세균성 뇌막염 혹은 뇌염이나 결핵성 뇌막염 혹은 뇌염, 바이러스성 뇌염 중 헤르페스성 뇌염과 같은 경우 환자가 두통과 오심, 구토, 고열만 호소하다 수일 내에 의식이 저하되며, 안면신경 혹은 외안신경 등의 뇌신경마비를 동반하기도 하며, 양하지 위약이나 대소변 장애, 성격 변화와 정신병적 행동, 시력 저하, 경련 발작 및 혈관에 염증이 번지게 되어 발생하는 혈관염에 의한 뇌허혈 혹은 뇌출혈으로 인해 반신마비, 구마비 등의 뇌졸중 증상이 발생하기도 한다. 무균성 뇌막염을 제외하고 세균성이나 결핵성 뇌수막염, 뇌염의 경우 머리에 물이 고여 뇌의 압력을 높이게 되는 수두증 등으로 사망하는 경우가 많다.

(iv) diagnosis of brain infection;

In order to diagnose brain infection, it is important to hear accurate disease, neological, and neological examination. It is very important to predict the possibility of brain resistant infection or brain infection, and the cause of disease (i.e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., g., e., e., g., e., e., g., e., e., e., g., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., me).

(v)an examination for brain infection;

A brain dysium test shall be conducted at all times, and a hysium shall be taken to alleviate pains. A patient shall be placed on a side hysium, and head and knenee shall be taken to the maximum extent so that he/she can easily enter a place under the hysium, so that he/she can easily obtain a malsium. Through a brain dysium test, he/she analyzes the opinions of pressure, gysium, color, and components of the hysium. If there is a heat, and there is a mixed food, it is necessary to suspect brain hysium or brain infection, so it is necessary to conduct a hysium test through the hysium, but it is accompanied by a hysium or brain hysium, so it is not a situation to conduct a hysium test if there is no hysium infection test in the hysium.

(vi)medical treatment for brain infection;

Medical treatment may be conducted using antibiotics, anti-viral viruss, anti-viral tuberculosiss, etc. according to the relevant infections, and, if there are both brain fat, an operation may be required. In the case of brain infection caused by cerebrovascular infection, an operation may be conducted. In the case of cerebrovascular infection, an operation may be conducted to reduce the survival rate and the degree of post-treatment by starting treatment as early as possible. The treatment period is different depending on the patient's cause germs, and is different from the clinical treatment reaction and the results of cerebrsomy examination. In general, if the reaction for treatment is appropriate, two weeks shall be used, and the anti-biotics and anti-viral viruss shall be used for nine months.

(vii) the progress of cerebral chye and male;

For example, the survival rate is at least 90% in the case of the lavemal brain infection, where the laves are administered within 4 days without food, and where the laves are administered within the laves, the treatment of anti-biotics and anti-viral viruss may affect the laves, and even if there is any response to appropriate treatment, it may remain aftermathic disorder, other psychotropic disorder, and light laves. However, in the case of the laves brain infection, the survival rate is at least 90% in the case where the laves are administered within the laves.

(viii) cerebral chymitis of a child;

(A)the exchange rate and death rate of a child, and the survival rate in the case of prompt diagnosis and treatment;

The rate of brain infection cannot be discussed in a lump sum because the cause germs or virus of a disease is diversified to children. However, the rate of the brain infection of the brain that may cause paralysis is about one hundred thousand persons per 10,000 persons. In addition, the death rate is about 70% in the case of the brain infection of the HHHV if there is a viral viral viral viral viral viral viral viral viral viral viral viral viral viral. Although it is important for prompt diagnosis and treatment of brain infection, it cannot be said uniformly because the survival rate varies depending on the cause virus. In general, the survival rate of the viral viral viral viral is more than 90%, but the survival rate is only 30% depending on the type, salone, and the

(b) the unique symptoms of her brain infection (in particular neological symptoms);

The symptoms vary depending on clinical progress and serious degree, and all children have died of the same kind immediately, and some patients are temporarily mixed with the time when consciousness has been finished, and completely recovered. The symptoms indicate the string, area, Gutotos, two pages, and dialogics. According to the type of virus, clinical symptoms are shown. Even if they occur by the same cause germs or virus, the clinical symptoms vary for each patient. In any son, only the first time, the patient died of the same kind, and there are cases where the patient died rapidly, and in any other son, the situation of high-calories, serious stimulsing, and stimulsation is completely recovered.

(c)the internal and external methods of testing for the diagnosis of cerebral infection of a child, and any gold engineer who is unable to carry out such testing;

A diagnosis by means of a brain recovery test, and it can be helpful for a diagnosis by brain wave or brain image testing. If there is no awareness rapidly, a prosecutor can not be conducted because it is damp or time, and if it is suspected that brain pressure is high, a brain recovery test is gold.

(d) the male, male, male and male in the event of the delay in treatment of brain infection;

The brain infection can occur, regardless of whether it can be treated or not, and in the case of the mar-hye hye hye hye hye hye hye hye hye hye hye hye hye hye hye hye hye hye hyea

(ix) diagnosis and treatment of brain infection at the first medical institution and superior general hospital;

A) The primary medical institution’s symptoms to be observed with special care in the above disease

Since early clinical symptoms are similar to respiratory infections or fire extinguishers infections and symptoms, it is difficult to distinguish, and there is a neological symptoms that must be observed with due care, such as changes in consciousness, abnormal behavior, spacence, etc.

B) Obligations related to all the first medical doctor and cooperation when it is impracticable to conduct blood tests, film tests, and drilling tests, etc. to diagnose brain infections due to the characteristics of the first medical institution

If the psychotropic symptoms, such as changes in food, abnormal behavior, spacing, etc., appear, it shall be transferred to a superior hospital.

C) Whether the primary medical institution has a duty to explain and instruct the method of medical care in connection with the continuation and aggravation of symptoms when a baby who has symptoms, such as a food bath, the symptoms of infection, the hair, and the flato, returns home after her home-to- home delivery.

Although additional explanation is not required because symptoms, such as food paralysis, infection symptoms, hair, stoves, and stoves, etc., are symptoms of infections or infections even above, it should be directed to visit a superior hospital if the neological symptoms, such as changes in food, abnormal behavior, stoves, etc., appear.

D) No gold engineer whose enforcement is prohibited in the above diagnosis method

A drilling test, which is helpful to the diagnosis of brain infection, is an dives test that can not be conducted at the first medical institution, and it is impossible to conduct a brain image test unless there is a facility.

E) Whether or not to separately examine brain infections by conducting a certain inspection at a superior general hospital when the symptoms of livering a simple body flag or leaving a hand after her internal organ are observed from before her internal organ to her child.

If there is a suspicion of brain infection because the above symptoms are not only brain infections, but are caused by the symptoms of other diseases, an examination is different depending on a accompanying disease, and it can be conducted separately through a cerebral dystrophy examination and brain image examination.

(f)a statement to be given at a superior general hospital and guidance on the method of medical care, if brain infection is suspected or is required to be reduced;

Since it is most important to determine whether there is a change in food when there is a suspected brain infection or when it is required to distinguish it, it is necessary to explain the change in food, it is necessary to observe as it can be accompanied by scams, etc.

10) Anthravary extra prize

A) Specific contents of symptoms

추체외로증상이란 파킨슨증, 무정위운동인 아테토시스, 무도병과 같은 이상불수의 운동을 특징으로 하는 임상적 질환의 1군이다. 이 증상은 마치 무도병이나 수축성 운동이 급속하고 다양한 정도로 일어나는 경련성으로 나타난다. 이들의 근육운동은 잘 조화된 협동운동처럼 보이지만 불수의적으로 일어나며, 흥분 또는 우울과 더불어 정신장애를 수반하는 것이다. 이런 추체외로증상이 대개 초기에는 근육경직, 좌불안석증 및 근긴장이상반응으로 일어난다. 근긴장이상에는 후굴성사경(목 뒤로 젖혀 기울어짐), 사경증(목 기울어짐), 염전변축증, 얼굴찡그림, 하지불안증 및 안구운동발작 등을 포함한다. 특히 급성적인 근긴장이상반응은 가장 초기에 나타나는 추체외로증상이다. 땀을 흘리며 울거나, 깨워도 일어나지 못하고, 말을 알아듣지 못하고, 말을 제대로 하지 못하는 증상은 추체외로증상에서 볼 수 있는 증상이다.

B. Division into brain resistant infections and brain infections;

(i)Other symptoms distinctively

Generally, there are many symptoms and signs of abnormal exercise symptoms (e.g., downcoming, progress, centerless abnormal, and non-explosive, etc.) in external symptoms, but appeal and observe more seriously infectious diseases. It is difficult to observe the situation where symptoms, other than the general drilling, cause serious changes in food, loss, salphe, biochemical (e.g., blood pressure, beer, and body temperature), and it is difficult to observe a large number of climatic cells in the brain dystrophy examination, and where 4 or more climatics are suspected of being infected with climatic boundary infection, such as cerebrum infection or brain infection.

diculgic diagnosis and dicology examination

Besides, it plays a role in controlling spathologicalism with spathological terms. The symptoms represented by spathic symptoms include spathn, spathic, spathic, remote, and spathic. When the spathic disease is under the spathic spathic spathic spathic disease in the spathic spathic spathic spathic spathic spathic spathic spathic spathic spathic spathic s

【Man-Man-Man-Man-Man-Man-Man-Man-Man-Man-Man-Man-Man-Man-Man-

㈎ 두 질환에 대하여 잘못된 처치를 하였을 때

If an infectious disease does not respond to an appropriate treatment, it would be accompanied by a chronic disorder by damage to the mid-to long-term system. The meaning of wrong treatment can be explained as the situation where appropriate treatment time is set. Although an independent symptoms themselves do not cause damage to the heavy postmar system, the patient's inconvenience and suffering level is very serious if a wrong treatment is taken.

㈏ 어느 질환이 더 빨리 치료가 이루어져야 하는지 여부

An emergency disease that requires prompt treatment is an infectious disease that needs to be treated. The symptoms related to cardiopulmonary pulmonary symptoms or symptoms related to blood pressure or beer and beer, which are related to cardiopulmonary symptoms, need first aid.

11) Medications of synthetic drugs

(A) the reason why the relevant person uses a beer and the amount of one-time medication to the patient;

The purpose of using beercin for the elderly patients is to curb the heart and stove, and the amount of one-time medication is 0.5T through 1T in the event of being administered into a stove, and the amount of administration is 0.1 to 0.15mg per body when administered into a stove, and the amount of administration for injection is 0.5mg per body for up to three times a day, and the maximum amount within 24 hours is 0.5m per body.

B) Side effects

In particular, there may be symptoms beyond the body, such as acute tension, abnormal exercise, sponson’s sponsor, sponsor, and sponsor, even after using children, young adults, or employment volume. Even if the sphere administration was made, sphere symptoms may arise, such as sphere, sphere, sphere, sphere, sphere, etc. up to 34%. Other symptoms may arise, such as sphere, sphere, sphere, sphere, sphere, sphere, sphere, etc., and sphere, sphere, sphere, sphere, etc.

11) Trine administration 4mphere is a drug having efficacy effect on the Gutos before and after an operation, Menitropha chere, meconium by meconium, meconium by meconium, meconium by meconium, and meconium to a child under 14 years of age, not administered because meconium inter alia meconium is easy to meconium, and administration to a child below 14 years of age is prohibited. For side effects, trasium tensions (a symptoms, such as acute tension, shooting, opening, meconium, meconium, development, and meconium, etc.) are reported. The administration volume of Trine Party by dividing 6 to 24mmphere for adults by three times a day, and adequate increase or decrease depending on age and symptoms.

[Ground of recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap's 3 through 6, 9, 10, 27 through 30, Eul's 1, Eul's 1, Eul's 1 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the doctor's association of the court of the first instance, and the result of each entrustment to the Association of Medical Doctors of the court of the first instance, the purport of the whole pleadings, as a result of each entrustment to the Association of Medical Doctors of the court of the first instance,

2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant 1

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff, due to Defendant 1’s negligence, caused psychotropic damage due to cerebral disease caused by cerebral disease, and caused the instant disability due to cerebral disease. As such, Defendant 1 is jointly and severally liable with Defendant ○ University Hospital for tort liability under Article 750 of the Civil Act due to nonperformance of fiduciary duty or breach of fiduciary duty, and thus, Defendant 1 is jointly and severally liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages arising from 329,326,391 won, 34,29,30 won, 34,29,30 won, 49,729, 14,84,616 won, 50,80,000 won, 10,000 won, 1235, 274, and 275 of the Civil Act.

1) In light of the following circumstances, Defendant 1 was at fault in the diagnosis that did not implement despite the duty to separate the Plaintiff’s brain infection through a detailed grammatic examination, etc., which can be said to be a simple grammatic examination against the Plaintiff.

A) Around 2003, there was a rapid increase in the number of brain infection patients in Korea, and on July 12, 2003, Defendant 1 could have predicted the Plaintiff’s brain infection because the Plaintiff complained of heat, clothes, and guto, etc., that was, Defendant 2 complained of the Plaintiff.

B) The brain infection is a dangerous emergency disease that may cause damage to the neutism and life, and can be treated by early diagnosis. As such, the recovery rate can be increased and the disability can be minimized, first of all, the diagnosis should be conducted to determine whether to exclude the neutism.

2) Defendant 1 was negligent in failing to provide guidance on the method of medical treatment, etc. in a case where the symptoms of the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s guardian are not shown.

3) Defendant 1 was at fault of violating all obligations due to the failure to implement the necessary inspection, even though he/she had an obligation to transfer the Plaintiff to a higher-level medical institution where the brain infection is anticipated due to the Plaintiff’s symptoms.

4) Defendant 1 committed a violation of the duty to provide the Plaintiff’s medical information, even though the Plaintiff was obligated to explain that the Plaintiff’s blood ties and cerebral mal marity need to be separately diagnosed, in a case where the Plaintiff ○ University Hospital was suffering from an emergency to make the phone calls, and that Defendant 1 breached the duty to provide the Plaintiff with medical information to explain that the Plaintiff’s blood mal marity and mal marity need to be separately diagnosed.

5) Since Defendant 1 administered a drug, the medication of which is prohibited to be administered, to the Plaintiff, thereby causing an urine stroke, and thereby failed to diagnose the Plaintiff’s brain infection at an early stage, Defendant 1 was negligent in violating the duty of avoidance of bad faith.

B. Relevant legal principles

1) Level of doctor's duty of care on duty

A physician has a duty of care to take the best measures required to prevent risks 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 based on the level of medical practice performed in the clinical medicine field, such as medical institutions, at the time of the medical practice. The level of medical care refers to the general known and recognized by an ordinary doctor at the time of the medical practice, and the level of medical care should be determined at a normative level in light of the environment and conditions of medical treatment, the peculiarity of the medical practice, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da26964, Jan. 24,

2) Criteria for determining whether there was negligence in diagnosis

As a starting point of clinical medicine, which is based on the results of literature diagnosis, diagnosis, promotion, hearing diagnosis, and various clinical tests, to distinguish whether a patient is suffering from disease, and to clarify its kind, character, degree of progress, etc., and accordingly, the Treatment Act is an important medical practice selected accordingly. Thus, in determining whether a diagnosis has negligence in the diagnosis, even though it is impossible to conduct the complete diagnosis in the process, it shall be determined whether the doctor anticipates the occurrence of a dangerous result and fulfills the best duty of care necessary to avoid the occurrence of the result by diagnosing and diagnosing patients with prudent and accurateness based on the medical ethics, medical knowledge and experience required as a professional in the field of clinical medicine at least within the scope of the diagnosis level practiced in the field of clinical medicine (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da4274, Feb. 27, 1998). In addition, if a doctor is unable to conduct the examination necessary for the diagnosis due to facilities of the relevant medical institution, geographical factors or any other various circumstances, the doctor is obligated to recommend all of the relevant medical institution to undergo the examination (see, etc.

(iii) obligation to explain and recommend doctors to suspected diseases;

In a case where a doctor finds an symptoms suspected of a disease in the course of treating the patient in detail, barring any special circumstance, he/she has a duty to explain and recommend the patient to undergo measures to clarify whether the disease occurred, the degree of such disease, etc., or to undergo an inspection. However, a doctor does not impose a duty to explain and recommend the patient to be subject to measures to disclose the disease until he/she is unable to fully recognize the possibility of the disease as a result of failing to diagnose the patient's medical treatment conducted in the field of clinical medicine (Supreme Court Decision 2009Da71404 Decided October 28, 2010).

(iv) the doctor’s guidance and duty to explain how to provide care for after-the-job diseases and care;

A doctor’s duty of care does not end by the completion of an act of invasion, such as surgery for a patient, but also extends to guiding and explaining the patient’s methods of medical care and other matters necessary for health management so that the patient can avoid anticipated risk in his/her living in an area other than the doctor’s scope of duty (see Article 24 of the Medical Service Act). As such, in a case where there is a possibility of occurrence of a chronic disease as a result of the relevant medical act such as surgery or in the course of the subsequent medical care, if there is a possibility of occurrence of a chronic disease, then he/she may directly determine and deal with what measures are necessary to prevent the occurrence of a serious result from a sudden disease, such as the method of medical care, the symptoms of a chronic disease, the degree of education, and the method of coping with the prevention or aggravation thereof, etc., in accordance with the patient’s age, the patient’s duty of explanation and guidance is an essential element and substance of the medical treatment, and thus, he/she cannot be exempt from the duty of explanation and explanation.

(v)the duty of care of doctors with respect to the provision of electric power and information;

If there are circumstances making it difficult for a patient to provide appropriate treatment or take such measures, measures to transfer the patient to another hospital capable of providing specialized treatment shall be taken promptly. Furthermore, a physician who transfers an emergency patient is obligated to provide the patient with information necessary for the treatment of the patient, such as major symptoms and signs of the patient, the results and basic diagnosis names of the patient conducted, the details of the first aid conducted, the patient’s conditions before and after the first aid, the patient’s conditions before and after the first aid, all necessary emergency tests and first aid, the level of urgency, etc. within reasonable scope (see Supreme Court Decisions 2009Do7070, Apr. 29, 2010; 2006Da41327, Dec. 21, 2006).

6) Criteria to determine the causal relationship between medical malpractice and the occurrence of damages

Medical practice is an area requiring highly specialized knowledge, and it is extremely difficult for a general person, not an expert, to clarify whether a doctor has breached his/her duty of care in the course of medical practice, or whether there exists causation between a doctor’s breach of duty of care and the occurrence of losses. Therefore, in the event of symptoms causing death to a patient during the surgery, it is possible to presume that such symptoms are based on medical negligence by proving indirect facts that it is difficult to deem that there are other causes than medical negligence in the event of symptoms causing death to the patient during the surgery. However, even in such case, it is not permissible to prove that the doctor bears the burden of proof of negligence by presumptioning the causal relationship with the doctor’s negligence in the very serious result with circumstances where the probability to presume the occurrence of the outcome is not secured (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da45185, Oct. 28, 2004).

C. Whether Defendant 1 was negligent in medical treatment in breach of the duty to separate examination of brain infections, to guide methods of medical treatment, to transfer to a higher hospital, and to provide information on medical treatment

In full view of the following circumstances recognized by comprehensively taking account of the above facts and the relevant medical knowledge, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, such as evidence evidence Nos. 5, 6, 9, 24, 25, and 26, is insufficient to recognize that Defendant 1 was negligent in medical treatment in breach of the duty to provide information on brain infection, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

1) Since the symptoms, which the Plaintiff complained of Defendant 2’s symptoms at the time of Defendant 1’s birth, are included in non-satchitis, satchitis and hepatitis, and acute organ infection, which are diseases diagnosed by Defendant 1, Defendant 1’s symptoms, Defendant 1’s diagnosis based on the symptoms alleged by the Plaintiff, it is difficult to deem that Defendant 1 was negligent in the diagnosis (the symptoms of non-satchitis and satchitis are satch, satch, satch, satch, heat, etc., and the symptoms of acute organ infection are satch, heat, and satch and satch).

2) In around 2003, the number of patients with the gymalococulosis in Korea has increased more than 38, and the fact of publishing the news magazine that the brain infection patient has increased around August 2003 at the public health clinic of Gwangju Do-gu, Seoul is recognized. However, such ex post facto materials alone are insufficient to deem that Defendant 1 was in a situation that could have been doubtful about the possibility of brain infection in addition to the disease diagnosed as above by Defendant 2 as of July 12, 2003, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently.

3) Although it was revealed that the Plaintiff had been infected, the initial clinical symptoms of the brain infection were similar to the above diseases diagnosed by Defendant 1, and there were no special circumstances, such as changes in awareness at the time of the resistant origin, abnormal actions, and climatic symptoms related to the brain infection such as spathy, so long as Defendant 1 did not seem to have been negligent in the diagnosis on the ground that Defendant 1 failed to conduct a separate diagnosis by considering the possibility of the spathy other than the diseases diagnosed as above.

4) As seen earlier, in light of the fact that: (a) although a physician provided medical treatment at the level of medical practice performed in the field of clinical medicine but did not have any knowledge of the patient’s possibility of occurrence of the disease; and (b) Defendant 1 did not have any duty to explain the measures, etc. to reveal the disease; (c) unless it is deemed that Defendant 1 was negligent in diagnosis, considering the possibility of brain infection and the possibility of brain infection, it is difficult to deem that Defendant 1 did not explain the possibility of brain infection or guide a superior hospital to visit the hospital, or did not transfer the hospital to a superior hospital, and thus, Defendant 1 did not have any negligence in violation of the duty to explain the method of medical treatment for brain infection and the duty to explain all of the superior hospital.

5) In addition, Defendant 1 determined the Plaintiff’s symptoms as a fire extinguishing machine or respiratory disease before hearing the Plaintiff’s blood, such as the Plaintiff’s blood, the Plaintiff’s blood, and the Plaintiff’s blood, etc., and provided treatment to the Plaintiff. Such content was notified to the person in charge of the emergency department of Defendant ○○ University Hospital prior to the Plaintiff’s arrival. ② Defendant 1 did not directly have witness the Plaintiff’s psychotropic symptoms, and went from the Plaintiff’s father. This only was confirmed by Defendant 1’s medical staff, a superior medical institution, through the Plaintiff’s oral and direct medical examination, and based on this results, the diagnosis was conducted. ③ Defendant 1 is not a medical specialist of the family department, but a medical specialist of the new border disease, while Defendant ○ University Hospital is not a medical specialist of the new border disease, it is difficult to view that it is necessary to give medical treatment to the Plaintiff during the treatment of the Plaintiff’s infection. Furthermore, in light of the Plaintiff’s medical knowledge and experience with respect to the Plaintiff’s psychotropic symptoms.

D. Whether Defendant 1’s negligence in the diagnosis and treatment on the administration of the Triuri Civil Party, and causation as to the disability of this case

In full view of the following circumstances recognized by Defendant 1’s comprehensive knowledge of the above facts and the relevant medical knowledge, it is insufficient to recognize that Defendant 1’s medication of Triuri Party was a medical negligence. However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, such as the written evidence Nos. 5, 6, and 9, alone, is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff caused the instant disability, such as the occurrence of an anti-urinary symptoms due to such medical negligence, or the Plaintiff’s early diagnosis of brain infection, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

1) As seen earlier, Tririth’s ruling has efficacy and effect on the Gutory before and after the surgery, but it is prohibited to administer the Gu to children under 14 years of age since it is difficult to pathn, in pathn, because pathn, especially ethic ethic ethic ethic ethic ethic ethic ethic ethic ethic ethic ethic ethic ethic ethic ethic ethic ethic ethic ethic ethic ethic ethic ethic ethic ethic ethic ethic ethic ethic ethic ethic ethic ethic ethic ethic ethic ethic ethic ethic.

2) A drug, the administration of which is prohibited for a baby, is likely to cause side effects even if it is administered by reducing the recommended volume for adults. Thus, it is not deemed that it is permitted to reduce the volume (where the volume is reduced, if it is possible to prevent side effects, it would be less likely to determine the recommended volume for a baby, it would not be necessary to prohibit it).

3) Even if Defendant 1 does not personally agree on the classification of the gold drugs of the Egyptian Party into those of the Egyptian Party, it is not possible to allow Defendant 1 to use the said drugs in advance of his personal opinion, unless the safety of the Egyptian Party’s so far as it is not supported by objectively reliable data.

4) In light of the above circumstances and the fact that, in the case of a child under the age of 14, use is not allowed relatively depending on symptoms, etc., and there are no special circumstances, such as the Plaintiff’s health condition if the child was not used at the time, serious problems may arise, etc., it is deemed that Defendant 1’s use of the Triri administration constitutes negligence in medical treatment.

5) However, in light of the following points, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, including the evidence Nos. 6 and 9, is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff caused an thalthothic injury to the body due to administration by Trithic Party, or that the Plaintiff was unable to diagnose the brain infection early, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

A) ① The Plaintiff, before Defendant 2 was admitted to Defendant 1’s membership, prescribed a beer 1’s cat, and the beer cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat).

B) The Defendant ○○ University Hospital did not have any material to deem that the Plaintiff’s words “ceratology” in relation to the drugs administered by the Plaintiff from Defendant 1, but did not appear to have diagnosed the Plaintiff’s symptoms under the premise that the Plaintiff administered ceratical medicine, and does not seem to have conducted the said diagnosis on the premise that the Plaintiff diagnosed the Plaintiff’s symptoms as an cratical sorratical sorratical sorratical sorratical sorratical sorratical sorratical sorratical sorratary. Accordingly, it is difficult to deem that the Defendant ○ University Hospital was unable to early diagnose the Plaintiff’s brain infection due to the Defendant 1’

E. Sub-decision

Therefore, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize the causal relationship between Defendant 1’s medical negligence or such negligence and the disability of this case as alleged by the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant 1 on a different premise is without merit without further examination.

3. Determination on the claim against Defendant ○ University Hospital

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff did not receive early diagnosis and treatment of brain infection due to the following negligence of the Defendant ○ University Hospital, thereby causing psychotropic damage caused by cerebral disease. As a result, the instant disability was caused by the aftermath, Defendant ○ University Hospital was liable for nonperformance under Article 390 of the Civil Act or tort liability under Article 750 of the Civil Act due to breach of good manager’s duty of care under the medical contract, and thus, Defendant 1 and the Plaintiff jointly is jointly and severally liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages arising from 329,326,391, 34,299,30, 49, 729, 14,84, 616, 509, 80, 800, 102, 2385, 274, and 49,157, 729, 14,884, 616, 509, 5444, 800, 128, 274.

1) In light of the following circumstances, even if the medical personnel at the Defendant ○○ University Hospital could have predicted the Plaintiff’s brain infection, and the Plaintiff may be presumed to have both brain infection and stimulative stimulative stimulative stimulation, Defendant ○○ University Hospital’s medical personnel should first conduct a stimulation examination for the brain infection, which is a serious disease, by giving priority to the examination of brain stimulation and the examination of brain stimulic stimulation, but at the risk of delayed diagnosis and treatment of the brain infection

A) At around 17:50 on July 12, 2003, the Plaintiff entered the emergency room of the Defendant ○○ University Hospital, the Plaintiff had no stroke stroke stroke, mental disorder (influence, fluencies, dong, patrine, fluence, etc.), stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke stroke s

B) Even if the body temperature was normal at the time of the Plaintiff’s internal source, there was a temporary decline due to piracy, and the Plaintiff’s parents complained of the heat caused by the Plaintiff’s symptoms before the internal source, so there was sufficient symptoms to suspect brain infection. Even if there was no symptoms to suspect brain infection at the time, the body temperature at around 19:00 on the same day was 38°C, and thus, it was sufficiently suspected of brain infection.

C) Defendant 1’s reliance on the diagnosis, examination, and diagnosis conducted by Defendant 1, who treated the Plaintiff when the ○ University Hospital was unable to conduct brain-related diagnosis, etc. on brain infection. Therefore, Defendant 1’s reliance on the Mac-related medication should not be the Defendant 1’s reliance on the Mac-related medication. The ○ University Hospital diagnosed the aforementioned erroneous information with the reliance on the Mac-related

D) At the time of the Plaintiff’s internal examination, the medical personnel at the Defendant ○ University Hospital included the cerebral maritis and the cerebral maritis in addition to the strophism, and thus, the medical personnel at the Defendant ○ University Hospital knew that there had been symptoms to suspect brain infection. The cerebral maritis is a dangerous emergency disease that may cause the nephal system to be destroyed and the life to be lost, and can increase the recovery rate and minimize disability as it can be treated early, while the nephal marosis was not damaged by the nephal mar, but rather was at a relatively less dangerous risk than the nephal mar, which causes inconvenience and pain to patients. If the pulmonary mal marosis was not required, the lephal marosis was first diagnosed, and thus, it is necessary to first examine whether the ephal maritis was excluded. Nevertheless, the Defendant ○ University Hospital did not excluding the nephal mar infection.

2) Defendant ○ University Hospital was negligent in failing to explain the possibility of brain infection to the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s protectors, various methods of and response to such infection, possible malicious results, and post-treatment.

B. Occurrence of liability for damages

1) Whether the diagnosis and treatment of the brain infection were delayed

Examining the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the aforementioned facts, the relevant medical knowledge, and the purport of the entire arguments in light of the relevant legal principles, even if it is impossible to conduct a complete clinical examination in determining whether there was negligence in the diagnosis, if the medical personnel at ○○ University Hospital was unable to perform the complete clinical examination based on the medical ethics, medical knowledge, and experience required within the scope of diagnosis level, which is implemented in the field of clinical medicine at the time when the medical personnel at ○○ University Hospital was a third medical institution, and provided the best duty of care necessary to avoid the occurrence of the result, and to predict the occurrence of a dangerous consequence by diagnosing and diagnosing the Plaintiff, the medical personnel at ○○ University Hospital could have been able to perform the medical treatment by early diagnosis and diagnosis of the Plaintiff’s brain infection. Accordingly, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff’s cerebral disease was aggravated to the degree of disability of this case due to delay in the diagnosis and treatment of the Plaintiff’s brain infection due to the negligence of the medical personnel at ○○ University Hospital.

A) The Plaintiff had symptoms to fully doubt the possibility of brain infection, such as food conditions and symptoms that appeared at the time when the Plaintiff was in the emergency room of Defendant ○ University Hospital, heating symptoms that appeared before that time, and alto, included the Plaintiff’s diagnostic name at the time of the medical team of Defendant ○ University Hospital, and included al to the Plaintiff’s al○ University Hospital infection and brain infection.

B) However, the medical personnel of ○○ University was provided with information that the Plaintiff had been able to give excessive medication to the Mac-type drugs before the Plaintiff was in an emergency room. Although the Plaintiff was given one time, even if it may cause an excessive medication to the Mac-type drugs of the Mac-type to the Mac-type, the Plaintiff’s Mac-type symptoms may appear beyond the Mac-type Mac-type Mac-type Mac-type Mac-type Mac-type Mac-type Mac-type Mac-type Mac-type Mac-type Mac-type Mac-type Mac-type Mac-type Mac-type Mac-type Mac-type Mac-type Mac-type Mac-type Mac-type Mac-type Mac-type Mac-type Mac-type Mac-type Mac-type Mac-type Mac-type.

C) However, around 19:00 on July 12, 2003, the Plaintiff was heated to the Plaintiff. However, at the same time, it appears that the medical personnel of ○○ University Hospital had been sufficiently suspected of brain infection of the Plaintiff.

(1) The medical personnel at ○○ University Hospital’s hospital’s hospital’s medical examination of brain infection with the Plaintiff at the time of the Plaintiff’s emergency medical personnel, but did not err in treating the cerebral stropha while treating the strokee without undergoing an examination of brain transfusion and a medical treatment for brain infection. The main reason is that the medical personnel at ○ University Hospital’s hospital’s medical personnel obtained information from Defendant 1 that the Plaintiff had been excessively administered the drugs of ergas, and that the possibility of strokes was significantly high, and that the Plaintiff did not seem to have any heat that can be seen as brain infection as the normal body at the time.

she was provided with the information that the Plaintiff was frightened to the Plaintiff through the medical examination of the Plaintiff’s parents at the time of the Plaintiff’s entry in the emergency room, and that the Plaintiff was frightened by Defendant 1 and Defendant 2. Therefore, it seems that the Plaintiff could have been aware of the possibility that the Plaintiff was frighten in the normal body at the time of the emergency room due to the temporary decline in the physical temperature due to the piracy surgery prescribed by each of the above members. In addition, as long as the Plaintiff had long run long since the Plaintiff was frighten of the symptoms, Defendant ○ University Hospital was measured at the time of the emergency room, it was sufficiently known that the normal body temperature measured at the time of the emergency room was likely to have caused a temporary phenomenon due to the administration of piracy, etc. as above.

【○○ University Hospital” appears to have sufficiently known that the Plaintiff had been provided with information that the Plaintiff was diagnosed at the first medical institution and Defendant 2’s first medical institution on symptoms, such as disguised infection. However, the initial symptoms of the Plaintiff were similar to the symptoms of the fire extinguishing machine and the respiratory equipment infection, such as heat, area, mouth, and so on, and the Plaintiff showed heat and psychotropic symptoms. Furthermore, even according to the Plaintiff’s direct diagnosis of the Plaintiff who was within the emergency room, it appears that the said diagnosis was likely to have been conducted by the ○○ University Hospital’s diagnosis. Moreover, even if it was conducted by the Plaintiff’s direct diagnosis of the Plaintiff, it appears that the Plaintiff did not have any pulmonary symptoms other than the Plaintiff’s pulmonary disease, such as pulmonary disease and pulmonary disease, and it appears that the Plaintiff’s pulmonary disease and pulmonary pulmonary disease did not seem to have been found to have been included in the causes of the Plaintiff’s pulmonary disease other than the Plaintiff’s pulmonary and pulmonary disease.

In addition, Defendant ○ University Hospital did not carry out the above inspection at the time it was filed by the Plaintiff, in light of the fact that there was no indication on brain infection or brain dysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysys

(v) in general, there are many symptoms and signs applicable to abnormal exercise symptoms (e.g., remote, high level of growth, centerless, non-fluor, etc.). However, infectious diseases appeal and observe high tensions, two or more times in the communicable disease, which are difficult to observe the situation causing serious changes in food, clothing, salphism, and salphism (e.g., blood pressure, beer, and body temperature) from the symptoms outside the general drilling, and ③ symptoms that may arise in the salphical symptoms, but the symptoms at the time of the plaintiff were symptoms that can be seen as brain infection, but if the salphical disease is being affected by the autopsy, all symptoms of the salphrosis can be found out to be outside the salphrosis, and thus, it cannot be readily concluded that the symptoms of the plaintiff do not constitute salphratitis in light of the symptoms that the plaintiff might not have been infected with salphrosis, etc. in light of the fact that the plaintiff might not have been infected.

⑹ 따라서 피고 ○○대학교병원으로서는 적어도 원고에게 발열 증상이 다시 나타난 2003. 7. 12. 19:00경에는 원고의 뇌염 가능성을 의심할 만하였고, 앞서 본 바와 같이 ① 뇌염은 적절한 치료시기를 놓치는 경우에는 중추신경계에 손상을 주어 후유장애를 동반하게 되는 반면 추체외로증상은 그 자체가 중추신경계에 손상을 초래하지 않고 호흡이나 혈압, 맥박과 관련되는 응급조치가 필요한 상황이 아니라면 빨리 치료가 이루어질 필요성이 뇌염에 비하여 상대적으로 낮으므로, 비록 추체외로증상으로 볼 가능성이 있는 환자라고 하더라도 뇌염의 가능성이 의심되는 환자에 대하여는 최대한 조속하게 요추천자를 통한 뇌척수액검사 등을 통해 뇌염 여부에 관하여 감별진단하고 치료를 시행할 필요가 있는 점, ② 뇌염의 경우 가능한 조기에 치료를 시작함으로써 생존율과 후유증 정도를 줄일 수 있고, 예후는 원인에 따라 다르나 적절하고 신속한 항생제 치료 및 항바이러스 치료가 예후에 영향을 미칠 수 있는 점, ③ 뇌척수액검사가 비록 침습적이기는 하나 뇌염을 조기에 진단, 치료하지 아니함으로 인하여 상당히 심화될 수 있는 후유증의 위험성을 고려한다면 이를 시행하는 경우의 이익이 위와 같은 침습적인 불이익에 비하여 상당히 우월하다고 할 것이고, 원고에게 당시 뇌척수액검사를 하지 못할 만한 금기증상이 보였다고 볼 만한 자료도 없는 점 등에 비추어 보면 즉시 뇌척수액검사 등을 시행하여 원고의 뇌염 여부를 감별진단하고 뇌염에 대한 치료를 할 필요가 있었던 것으로 보인다.

⑺ 원고에 대하여는 이미 2003. 7. 12. 13:00경 신경학적 증상이 나타났던 점, 원고에 대하여 2003. 7. 13. 07:30경 뇌척수액검사를 시행한 결과 백혈구 수치가 380개로서 뇌염을 의심할 만한 수치인 4개를 훨씬 초과하는 점 등에 비추어 보면 피고 ○○대학교병원의 의료진이 원고에게 발열 증상이 다시 나타난 2003. 7. 12. 19:00경 뇌염에 대한 감별진단을 실시하였다면 뇌염을 보다 조기에 발견하여 치료할 수 있었을 것으로 보이고, 당시는 원고에게 신경학적 증상이 나타난 시기로부터 약 6시간 이후로서 조기에 치료가 이루어졌다면 뇌세포의 손상을 상당히 줄일 수 있었을 가능성이 상당하다고 할 것이다. 원고는 뇌염에 대한 진단 및 치료가 이루어지지 아니하는 동안 뇌세포의 손상이 계속 진행되어 이 사건 장애에 이를 정도로 증상이 악화된 것으로 보인다.

2) Whether there is negligence not explaining the possibility of brain infection, etc.

Although Defendant ○ University Hospital was negligent in failing to explain the possibility of brain infection to the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s guardians, various methods of inspection and response, possible malicious results, and aftermathy, it is difficult to view that Defendant ○ University Hospital had a duty to explain in detail all methods of treatment and treatment unrelated to the right to self-determination. ② Defendant ○ University Hospital’s failure to explain to the Plaintiff’s parents on the possibility of brain infection is a result of the Plaintiff’s diagnosis without brain infection. As seen earlier, it is difficult to view the Plaintiff’s failure to explain the possibility of brain infection as a separate negligence. ③ Defendant ○ University Hospital was diagnosed as brain infection with the Plaintiff on July 13, 2003, which was diagnosed as brain infection with the Plaintiff, and it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff’s ○ University Hospital’s guardian through Nonparty 4 did not explain the possibility of brain infection as a result of treatment, and it is difficult to find the possibility of death as a result of the Plaintiff’s ○ University Hospital’s negligence to the Plaintiff’s guardian.

3) The grounds for the Plaintiff’s liability for damages and the determination on the grounds for the extinctive prescription of Defendant ○ University Hospital

Therefore, Defendant ○ University Hospital violated its duty of care to diagnose and treat brain infection early pursuant to the medical contract concluded with the Plaintiff, and this can be seen as tort committed by a medical personnel who violated its duty of care as seen above. Thus, barring any special circumstance, Defendant ○ University Hospital is a debtor who failed to perform its obligation under the above medical contract or an employer related to tort, and is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages caused by the instant disability.

As to this, Defendant ○ University Hospital asserted that, insofar as the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on July 21, 2003, more than three years elapsed since July 21, 2003, which came to know about the Plaintiff’s illegal act of Defendant ○ University Hospital and the damages therefrom, the Plaintiff’s damage claim against Defendant ○ University Hospital was extinguished by the statute of limitations.

The right to claim for damages due to the illegal act by the victim or his legal representative is extinguished by prescription if it is not exercised within three years from the date on which the victim or his legal representative becomes aware of the damage and the perpetrator (Article 766(1) of the Civil Act). As seen earlier, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff’s parent, the legal representative of the Plaintiff or the Plaintiff at the time of the Plaintiff, was diagnosed with brain infection, acute malphephephephephephephephephephephephephephephephephephephephephephephephephism, and that the damage and the perpetrator were known during the process of transferring the Plaintiff to ○ University Hospital on July 21, 2003. As such, the part on the ground of the claim against the Defendant○ University Hospital was extinguished by prescription. However, the right to claim damages due to nonperformance under the medical contract is within the period of ten years and the short-term statute of limitations under the above provision is not applied. As of June 18, 2013.

Therefore, Defendant ○ University Hospital’s defense of extinctive prescription is reasonable within the above scope of recognition, and Defendant ○ University Hospital is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages due to nonperformance of contractual obligations.

C. Limitation on liability for damages

Where damage occurs or has been expanded by competition between harmful acts and the factors of the victim, even though the factors of the victim are irrelevant to the causes of the victim, such as the risk of physical talent or disease, in light of the form, degree, etc. of the disease, if it goes against the principle of comparative negligence by applying the principle of comparative negligence to determine the amount of compensation, the court may take into account the factors of the victim who contributed to the occurrence or expansion of the damage (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da16713, Jun. 24, 2005).

In light of the above legal principles, it is difficult to view that it is easy to diagnose her early stage because her initial symptoms are similar to hermeology, etc.; ② Defendant ○ University Hospital was notified by Defendant 1 of the Plaintiff’s surgery, and the Plaintiff’s physical temperature was the normal range at the time of her inner organ, so the Plaintiff’s symptoms were likely to be mistaken for her strophism; ③ even if there was an appropriate response to appropriate treatment, she may have remaining aftermatho, such as her memory disorder, and other chronic disorders and strophism, and the Plaintiff was born to Defendant ○ University Hospital since her early diagnostic symptoms were similar to hermeology, and thus, it is difficult to view that it was almost difficult to view that the Plaintiff’s early diagnosis and treatment of her brain infection, and thus, Defendant ○ University Hospital’s compensation for damages is reasonable in view of the principle of fair sharing of damages at Defendant 3 University Hospital’s expense.

D. Scope of liability for damages

The court of the first instance, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments as a result of the appraisal commission to △△ University Hospital, the Plaintiff was showing symptoms of excessive behavior due to the instant disability, such as meals, personal hygiene, and urine treatment, and was in need of the full assistance of others in the field of daily life activities, such as treating meals, personal hygiene, and urine treatment. Such post-treatment constitutes 100% of the labor ability loss rate depending on two parts, brain, and marithic disability assessment table (the mathic disorder or marithic disorder), among the two parts, the above-mentioned post-D (the mathic disorder: uncertainty of all sports, and the math of the two legs).

There is no dispute between the parties, or comprehensively considering the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 7, 8, 11 through 21, and the whole purport of the argument as a result of the first instance court's entrustment of appraisal to △△ University Hospital, △△△ University Hospital, the basis for calculation of mental damages, expenses, calculation details, and the amount are as follows (However, it shall be calculated at the present price at the time of the instant accident according to the simple discount method that deducts intermediary interest at the rate of 5% per annum, and it shall be discarded below the convenience of calculation and below the month):

(i) lost earnings;

(A) the basic facts

(1) Date of birth of the Plaintiff: (Date of birth omitted)

Shelled Date: July 12, 2003 (Age at the time of an accident: ▽3 months);

Article 26(1) of the Civil Act:

x occupation: Ministry of City and Maritime Affairs

(v) monthly income;

(1) 1,851,652 won = 84,166 won ¡¿ 22 days.

(5 months from April 7, 2014 to September 6, 2014)

(2) 1,907,092 won = 86,686 won ¡¿ 22 days.

(after September 7, 2014)

⑹ 가동연한 : 원고가 성인이 되는 2013. 4. 7. 이후로서 원고가 구하는 2014. 4. 7.부터 원고가 60세에 이르기 전날인 2054. 4. 6.까지 492개월간

B)Calculation

The total amount of daily income: 249,757,545 won in total of the following amounts:

(i) From April 7, 2014 to September 6, 2014: 5,989,168 won (=1,851,652 won as of the monthly wage of an urban ordinary worker x 3.2345 (i.e., the heading coefficient 105.6473 - 105.6473 - 128 April 128)

B. from September 7, 2014 to October 12, 203, 203: 218,859,212 won [1,907,092 won per month wage of an urban ordinary worker] x 114.7607 (i.e., 220.4080-13 months after 362 months from the date of the occurrence of the accident];

Article 24,909,164 won [27,363,746 won = (1,907,092 won as of the daily wage of an urban ordinary worker = 1,907,092 won x 19.5920, which is the upper limit to prevent excessive compensation within the range of the premium coefficient after 608 months from the date of the occurrence of the accident] x 2/3 (1 - 1/3 of income equivalent to the living cost] of the daily wage of an urban ordinary worker]

(ii) Written treatment costs;

32,739,084 Won [The sum of intermediate interest shall be the amount obtained by deducting the intermediate interest from the method of adding up the king treatment expenses indicated in Gap evidence No. 11 through 21 by each year, and then multiplying each transitional year by the head of f delivery coefficient; hereinafter a minority).

1,239,90 (total amount of treatment expenses) = 1,239,90 (the total amount of treatment expenses for the relevant period) x 0.9523 (Franch coefficient) x 9,388,260 x 7,905 x 901,905 x 7,900 x 901,285.62 x 065 x 068.62 x 065 x 7,905 x 064.6 x 06 x 7.46 x 06 x 7. 86 x 944,865 x 206 x 7. 86 x 96 x 206 x 7. 5 x 206 x 7. 96 x 206 x 36. 5 x 206 x 97. x 36. x 206. x 294

(iii) future treatment costs;

From October 18, 2014 to October 12, 203, the day following the date following the date of filing the claim for the treatment costs of the following future treatment costs to be incurred for about 19 years from approximately 19 years, which is the Plaintiff’s life expectancy due to the instant disability: 32,432,970 won (each of the following future treatment costs is not indicated below the decimal point, but the sum includes below the decimal point).

(a) diagnosis fees (annual treatment costs of KRW 159,600);

159,600 won = 9.4392 [The heading coefficient of 18.0293 - the heading coefficient of 18.5901 after 11 year ( October 18, 2014)] = 1,506,496 won (the life period) after 30 years from the date of the accident.

B) Mali blood testing (annual treatment costs of KRW 5,252);

5,252 won x 9.4392 = 49,574 won (insubordination period)

C) Inter-functional examinations (annual treatment costs of KRW 4,108);

4,108 won x 9.4392 = 38,776 won (insubordination period)

(d) blood transition tests (annual treatment costs of KRW 12,714);

12,714 won x 9.4392 = 120,010 won (insubordination period)

E) Dried functional test (annual treatment costs of KRW 3,471)

3,471 won x 9.4392 = 32,763 won (insubordination period)

F) Annual treatment costs of 10,023 Won 10,023

10,023 won x 9.4392 = 94,609 won (insubordination period)

g) urine testing (annual treatment costs of KRW 2,990);

2,990 won x 9.4392 = 28,223 won (insubordination period)

h) Bovine testing (annual treatment costs of KRW 16,588)

16,588 won x 9.4392 = 156,577 won (insubordination period)

(i) chest X-ray shooting (annual treatment costs of KRW 8,665);

8,665 won x 9.4392 = 81,790 won (insubordination period)

(j) X-ray shooting (annual treatment costs of KRW 6,780);

6,780 won x 9.4392 = 63,97 won (Insubordination period)

k) CT tracking inspection on whether there is a merger of brain dystrophism (annual treatment costs of KRW 197,081)

197,081 Won x 9.4392 = 1,860,287 Won (Fence period)

l) Transportation costs required for internal medical examination [calculated based on KRW 20,000 as sought by the Plaintiff within the scope of annual treatment costs of KRW 240,000 (=20,000 x 12 months)];

20,000 won x 9.4392 = 2,265,408 won (insubordination period)

(m) Rehabilitation treatment for the development of the medium-aged boundary (=annual treatment costs of KRW 3,185,988 (=20,423 x 3 times a week x 52 weeks)

3,185,988 won x 1.8193 = 10.4094 - Hofman coefficient 8.5901 after 11 year), = 5,796,268 won (three years)

(n) functional stimulative therapy (annual treatment costs of KRW 2,484,300);

2,484,300 won ¡¿ 1.8193 = 4,519,687 won (three years)

(o) rehabilitation functional treatment (annual treatment costs of KRW 2,356,536);

2,356,536 won ¡¿ 1.8193 = 4,287,246 won (three years)

(p) Early wave therapy (Ultra Gun and annual treatment costs of KRW 190,632)

190,632 won ¡¿ 1.8193 = 346,816 won (three years)

(q)special treatment (annual treatment costs of KRW 2,009,748);

2,009,748 won ¡¿ 1.8193 = 3,656,335 won (three years)

(r) daily action training (annual treatment costs of KRW 1,760,304);

1,760,304 won ¡¿ 1.8193 = 3,202,521 won (three years)

s) Continuous treatment (annual treatment costs 531,336)

531,336 won ¡¿ 1.8193 = 966,659 won (three years)

(t) Oral therapy (annual treatment costs of KRW 2,308,800)

2,308,800 won ¡¿ 1.8193 = 4,200,400 won (three years)

uivtril 0.5g 0.5 T (Annual treatment costs 9,125 won)

9,125 won x 9.4392 = 86,132 won (insubordination period)

Lexer 10mg (for a year, 101,835 won)

101,835 won x 9.4392 = 961,240 won (insubordination period)

w) Temazpine 200mg (annual treatment costs of KRW 19,893)

19,893 won x 9.4392 = 187,774 won (insubordination period)

(iv) assistant aids;

The sum of auxiliary aids from October 17, 2014 to October 12, 203, the remaining life expectancy after the date of filing a claim for the medical expenses: 13,938,93 won

(a) Talopic tea (two years);

480,000 won = 2.1231 [Ap. 0.6451 (C. 11 year after the date of the accident) + 0.55 (C. 16 year thereafter) + 0.4878 (C. 21 year thereafter) + 0.4347 (C. 26 year thereafter)} = 1,019,08 won

B) Diaper (5 / 1 day)

Annual KRW 1,368,750 (=750 won x 5 x 365 days) x 9.4392 = 12,919,905 won

(v) nursing expenses;

(A) the necessity and degree of the opening;

It is recognized that the plaintiff needs to open for 8 hours per ordinary adult male and female in a state that needs to be opened in all living activities, such as personal hygiene, bathing, meal, toilet use, clothes, garncing, booming, moving of walking, etc.

B) the necessary period

At around 17:50 on July 12, 2003, the Plaintiff applied to Defendant ○ University Hospital, and appears to have received treatment from July 13, 2003 to July 21, 2003, from the next day, until the time he transferred to △ University Hospital. However, during the above period, the Plaintiff seems not to need nursing. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seems to need nursing from July 21, 2003 to October 12, 203, the date of the Plaintiff’s life expectancy due to the instant disability.

C) Calculation of opening expenses: 508,395,41 won (=the aggregate of the opening expenses indicated below = 509,893,544 won - 450,310 won (=10 days from July 11, 2003 to July 20, 2003 x 45,031 won) + - 1,047,823 won for July 12, 2003 - 360,000 won [i] 36.36 months from July 26, 203 x 2036,000 won [i] 36.36 months from July 26, 203] stated in the table below :

A person shall be appointed.

6) Property damage amount: 293,042,401 won (=total amount of 837,264,003 won for each of the above property damage 】 35% of the limited liability ratio as examined earlier)

7) Consolation money

The Plaintiff’s consolation money shall be determined as KRW 35,00,000, comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances shown in the argument of the instant case, including the Plaintiff’s age, the background and consequence of the occurrence of the instant disability, and the limitation of liability as seen earlier.

8) Sub-determination

Therefore, Defendant ○ University Hospital is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the damages amounting to KRW 328,042,401 (=property damages amounting to KRW 293,042,401 + solatium amounting to KRW 35,00,000) and damages for delay at each rate of 20% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from July 12, 2003 to July 21, 2016, where it is deemed reasonable for Defendant ○ University Hospital to dispute about the existence and scope of its duty of care due to the breach of the duty of care due to the medical contract by Defendant ○ University Hospital’s medical care contract.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant ○ University Hospital is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder of the claim against the defendant ○ University Hospital and the claim against the defendant 1 against the defendant ○ University Hospital is dismissed without merit. Since the part concerning the defendant ○ University Hospital in the judgment of the court of first instance is partially unfair, the plaintiff's appeal against the defendant ○ University Hospital was partially accepted, and the part concerning the defendant ○ University Hospital in the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant ○ University Hospital in the judgment of the court of first instance regarding the above recognized amount is revoked, and the above part against the defendant ○ University Hospital in the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the remaining part in the judgment of the court of first instance is justified, and the plaintiff's remaining appeal against the defendant ○○ University Hospital and appeal against the defendant 1 are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Ba-ho (Presiding Judge)

(1) The Plaintiff asserted liability for nonperformance under Article 390 of the Civil Act as to the negligence of a good manager’s duty of care under the contract for medical treatment in the complaint against the Defendants. On November 12, 2014, in the written application for modification of the claim and the cause of the claim, the part of the liability for damages arising out of the cause of the claim stated in the complaint was invoked, and maintained such cause of claim.