손해배상(의)
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. As to this part of the basic facts, this court shall accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is the same as that of the judgment, except where the following is written or added:
The fourth and third directions of the judgment of the first instance shall be followed as follows.
“3) The Plaintiff currently complained of the current constant pains, the right side pains, and both sides of the radioactive source. As a result of the physical examination commission conducted by the first instance court, the Plaintiff did not verify the Plaintiff’s movement, sense, abnormal sense, or neological disorder. However, on June 26, 2019, it was confirmed that there was a suspicion of chronic nephism of the first instance court’s 4,5 degrees “this court” in the fourth, fourth, and fourth (including the provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), “this court” in the first instance court, “(including the number)” in the fourth, fourth, “(including the number),” and “the grounds for recognition” in the fourth, and “the addition of the results of this court’s appraisal” in the fourth, and the fourth through sixth” in the first instance court.
2. 원고의 주장 피고는 이 사건 1, 2차 시술 및 수술 과정에서 아래 3의 가, 나항 기재와 같은 과실로 원고를 현재와 같은 상태에 이르게 하였고, 아래 3의 다항과 같이 설명의무를 위반하였으므로, 피고는 원고에게 진료계약 불이행에 따른 손해배상으로 69,921,270원 ≒ 적극적 손해 9,921,270원 소극적 손해 42,348,133원 위자료 20,000,000원 원고는 당초 소장에서 ‘소극적 손해 중 일부금으로 40,000,000원, 위자료로 20,000,000원을 청구한다.’고 주장하였다가, 2018. 10. 17.자 준비서면에서는 ‘소극적 손해는 42,348,133원이나, 소장 기재 금액과 차이가 크지 않으므로 종전과 같이 60,000,000원을 구하고, 위 금액에는 위자료도 포함되어 있다.’는 취지로 주장하였는바, 소극적 손해,...