RISS 학술연구정보서비스

검색
다국어 입력

http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.

변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.

예시)
  • 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
  • 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
닫기
    인기검색어 순위 펼치기

    RISS 인기검색어

      KCI등재

      후유장해를 둘러싼 민사책임의 쟁점들 - 대법원 2008.3.27. 선고 2007다76290 판결을 중심으로-

      한글로보기

      https://www.riss.kr/link?id=A82509213

      • 0

        상세조회
      • 0

        다운로드
      서지정보 열기
      • 내보내기
      • 내책장담기
      • 공유하기
      • 오류접수

      부가정보

      다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract) kakao i 다국어 번역

      In this paper, the Judgment 2007DA76290 of the Korean Supreme Court was analysed in two points of the legal theory and litigation. The judgment arouses some issues of medical malpractice liability. They includes the concept of the complications and permanent lesion and the difference between them, some problems in a judge's applying the requirements for the physician's tort liability to the medical malpractice situations, the theory of obligation de moyens related with the burden of proof of the negligent conduct for a physician's liability for misperformance of contract, the influence of a patient's physical conditions on the physician's liability, the breach of duty to disclose in selecting the safer one of the treatment methods bringing about the complications or leaving the permanent lesion and so on. In the situations of the case referred to above, the plaintiff should have tried to establish that a reasonable physician in the specific situation of the case would have substituted the safer method of treatment for the method in the case. If the plaintiff had succeeded in establishing it, he or she could have recovered even the physical harm resulting from the permanent lesion brought about by the complications of the specific treatment in the case. The plaintiff failed to do so and recovered only the emotional distress which the patient suffered owing to the physician's breach of the duty to disclose. Therefore the legal malpractice of the counsel might be found in this case.
      번역하기

      In this paper, the Judgment 2007DA76290 of the Korean Supreme Court was analysed in two points of the legal theory and litigation. The judgment arouses some issues of medical malpractice liability. They includes the concept of the complications and pe...

      In this paper, the Judgment 2007DA76290 of the Korean Supreme Court was analysed in two points of the legal theory and litigation. The judgment arouses some issues of medical malpractice liability. They includes the concept of the complications and permanent lesion and the difference between them, some problems in a judge's applying the requirements for the physician's tort liability to the medical malpractice situations, the theory of obligation de moyens related with the burden of proof of the negligent conduct for a physician's liability for misperformance of contract, the influence of a patient's physical conditions on the physician's liability, the breach of duty to disclose in selecting the safer one of the treatment methods bringing about the complications or leaving the permanent lesion and so on. In the situations of the case referred to above, the plaintiff should have tried to establish that a reasonable physician in the specific situation of the case would have substituted the safer method of treatment for the method in the case. If the plaintiff had succeeded in establishing it, he or she could have recovered even the physical harm resulting from the permanent lesion brought about by the complications of the specific treatment in the case. The plaintiff failed to do so and recovered only the emotional distress which the patient suffered owing to the physician's breach of the duty to disclose. Therefore the legal malpractice of the counsel might be found in this case.

      더보기

      목차 (Table of Contents)

      • I. 서설
      • II. 사건ㆍ재판의 경과 및 간략한 검토
      • 1. 사건 및 재판의 경과
      • 2. 제1심판결(대전지방법원 2005.11.29. 선고 2004가단47793 판결)
      • 3. 원심판결(대전고등법원 2007.10.10. 선고 2006나768 판결)
      • I. 서설
      • II. 사건ㆍ재판의 경과 및 간략한 검토
      • 1. 사건 및 재판의 경과
      • 2. 제1심판결(대전지방법원 2005.11.29. 선고 2004가단47793 판결)
      • 3. 원심판결(대전고등법원 2007.10.10. 선고 2006나768 판결)
      • 4. 대법원판결(대법원 2008.3.27. 선고 2007다76290 판결)
      • 5. 환송 후 원심판결(대전고등법원 2008.9.18. 선고 2008나3488 판결)
      • 6. 환송 후 대법원판결(대법원 2008.12.24. 선고 2008다75041 판결)
      • III. 쟁점별 검토
      • 1. 후유장해와 합병증
      • 2. 후유장해의 발생과 진료과오책임
      • 3. 후유장해의 발생에 기여한 기왕증의 고려
      • 4. 후유장해와 설명해태책임
      • 5. 설명의무이행의 증명
      • IV. 결어
      • 참고문헌
      • ABSTRACT
      더보기

      분석정보

      View

      상세정보조회

      0

      Usage

      원문다운로드

      0

      대출신청

      0

      복사신청

      0

      EDDS신청

      0

      동일 주제 내 활용도 TOP

      더보기

      주제

      연도별 연구동향

      연도별 활용동향

      연관논문

      연구자 네트워크맵

      공동연구자 (7)

      유사연구자 (20) 활용도상위20명

      이 자료와 함께 이용한 RISS 자료

      나만을 위한 추천자료

      해외이동버튼