[1] The degree of and standard for the duty of care to be performed by a doctor when performing medical practice

[2] The case holding that the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles, in a case where Gap, who is older than 75 years old, received physical treatment from Eul's member, and got home without any examination or measure or any particular explanation, and thereafter Gap died, although Eul's negligence and death could have a considerable causal relationship between Eul's death and Eul's death

[1] Article 750 of the Civil Act / [2] Article 750 of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 98Da45379, 45386 Decided March 26, 199 (Gong1999Sang, 772) Supreme Court Decision 2010Da76849 Decided September 13, 2012

Plaintiff 1 and three others (Attorneys Shin Jae-ho et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Law Firm ELD Partners et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2012Na60895 decided May 23, 2013

The part of the lower judgment against the Plaintiffs is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. The Defendant’s appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Based on the adopted evidence, the court below acknowledged the following facts: (a) on August 5, 2009, when the deceased non-party was hospitalized in an emergency operation, such as meconium and meconium removal from meconium by a member of the National Assembly operated by the defendant (hereinafter referred to as "the defendant's member"), the accident occurred; (b) on the same day, the defendant returned home without any particular examination or measure; and (c) on the same day, the non-party was diagnosed by being inside the emergency room of the National University of Korea at 19:00 as a result of the diagnosis of meconium, meconium, acute he was proved by meconium and meconium he was hospitalized during the litigation of this case; and (d) on the other hand, the non-party was unable to immediately explain the symptoms of meconium or meconium removal from meconium, even if she was unable to immediately explain the symptoms of me due to meconium or meconium removal from me.

Furthermore, the lower court determined that it is difficult to recognize that the Nonparty was faced with head on the floor as at the time of the instant accident, and there is no objective evidence to recognize that the Nonparty was faced with head on the floor after the instant accident, and that there is a possibility that the Nonparty was shocked due to the Nonparty’s her home home, or the state of her slaging and the slaging slaging that the slag was aggravated, etc., and that there was a considerable causal link between the Defendant’s negligence and the Nonparty’s death, and rejected the Plaintiffs’ claim for damages on the premise that there was a considerable causal link between the Nonparty’s death.

2. 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 is based on the level of medical practice performed in the clinical medicine field, including a medical institution, at the time of the medical practice. The level of medical care is generally known and recognized at the time of the medical practice by an ordinary doctor. As such, 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 Decisions 98Da45379, 45386, Mar. 26, 199; 2010Da76849, Sept. 13, 2012).

In light of the above legal principles, the part of the court below's determination that the non-party who is older than 75 years old has violated the best duty of care required for the doctor to return home without any examination or measure as well as without any explanation, even though the non-party, who received physical treatment from the defendant's council member, was involved in an accident falling from the invasion. In light of the above legal principles, the part of the court below's determination that the defendant returned home without any specific explanation is justifiable, and there is no violation of law such as

3. However, we cannot accept the part of the judgment below which determined that there was no causal relationship between the accident of this case and the occurrence of the non-party's acute hiverosis and the death of this case.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the records, around 10:00 on August 5, 2009, when the accident of this case occurred, the non-party was receiving water treatment by being admitted to the non-party under the condition that there was no health defect that could be the cause of acute hiverosis. The non-party voluntarily complained of two cases at the time of hospitalization. The non-party voluntarily prepared a medical record that the non-party complained of two cases at around 10:43 on the same day immediately after the arrival of this case. The non-party was hospitalized at the Hanyang National University Hospital on the date of the accident, which stated that the non-party was in an emergency room after the non-party's head was dissatisfy and was unable to be found to be sufficiently, and that the non-party was receiving water treatment by light of the medical record of this case at around 205, but it appears that the non-party was suffering from the non-party's sexual hiverosis and the non-party's sexual hiverosis.

In light of these facts, it is reasonable to view that there was a substantial causal relationship between the defendant's negligence and the death of the non-party, as seen earlier, since the accident of this case occurred the non-party's acute blood relative, but the non-party did not receive any timely appropriate treatment.

Nevertheless, the lower court determined otherwise that there was no substantial causal relationship between the Defendant’s negligence and the Non-Party’s death on the grounds that the instant accident could not be deemed to have occurred due to the Nonparty’s acute hiverosis. Therefore, the lower court erred by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the causal relationship in medical litigation, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

4. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal by the plaintiffs, the part against the plaintiffs among the judgment below is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. The defendant's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices

Justices Kim Shin (Presiding Justice)