손해배상(의)
1. Of the judgment of the first instance court, KRW 5,00,000 against the Plaintiff regarding the Defendant and its related thereto, from February 29, 2012 to January 22, 2016.
1. Basic facts
A. As of August 27, 2011, the Plaintiff suffered injury from damage to the 5th right malkedes, the Plaintiff received medical treatment from the Sungchi University Sexual Hospital (hereinafter “Defendant Hospital”) located in the 170-ro 22, an oral 170-ro 22, which was located in the 170-ro from the 5th right mnives, as well as the 5th mnives.
B. On September 15, 201, at the Defendant Hospital, the Plaintiff was hospitalized in a diagnosis that it is impossible to actively extract the 5th right mar in the form of a single stude due to a stude due to a stude, as a result of a string of strings at the Defendant Hospital. On September 16, 2011, the Plaintiff was discharged on September 18, 201 from the 5st mar method (hereinafter “the first operation”).
C. On September 29, 201, the Plaintiff was treated as outpatients at the Defendant Hospital after discharge, and removed some sponsions at the department of the operation on September 29, 201, and removed all the sponsors and part of the sponsors at the department of the operation on October 6, 2011, however, the Plaintiff could not actively exercise the right 5 balance.
On October 20, 2011, the Plaintiff sought an explanation from the Defendant Hospital that milking may be necessary to improve the active movement of the fifth balance of right, and that he/she would receive milking on December 20, 201, as well as on February 20, 2012.
E. On February 28, 2012, the Plaintiff was hospitalized in the Defendant Hospital, and received the second surgery on February 29, 2012 (hereinafter “the second surgery”). On March 3, 2012, the Plaintiff was unable to rescue fingers from the right-hand 5 mar (hereinafter “third surgery”). On March 5, 2012, the Plaintiff was hospitalized in the Defendant Hospital, and she again received the second surgery on March 5, 2012 (hereinafter “third surgery”).
F. In spite of the third operation, the Plaintiff was unable to actively exercise the joints between the neighboring land and the main area due to the damage to the 5-side dyscule of the 5-side dys, and thus, the scope of the movement of the 5-side dyscule was limited.
G. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff’s blood transfusion used after the second surgery is right.