beta
(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.05.18 2016나2008419

채무부존재확인

Text

The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) from August 8, 2012 to August 13, 2012.

Reasons

Basic Facts

The status of the party shall be a medical specialist working in the C/L located in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff Council member”), and the defendant shall be from August 8, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as “the facts generated in the same year”) to August 8, 2012.

8. up to 13. A person who received hospitalized treatment from the Plaintiff Council member.

Plaintiff

The defendant who requested the Council member to leave the hospital and the period of hospitalized treatment

8.8. The plaintiff complained of symptoms, such as heat (38.3CC), pyr, balone, urine pain, urine pain, urology, urine therapy, and urology. The plaintiff diagnosed the defendant. In addition to the defendant's above symptoms, the defendant's medical examination shows that the plaintiff's opinion that the part connected with the spine part of the spine part and the urine urine urine were caused by severe pain. The defendant in the medical examination shows that it is not clear whether the plaintiff confirmed whether the plaintiff was using the spine urine urine urine urine urine urine at the time of internal source, and it is difficult to view that the plaintiff's evaluation of the medical examination entrusted to the head of the Seoul University Hospital at the court of the first instance did not have been recorded in spine urine urine urine urine urine, but it is also difficult to accept the above part of the plaintiff's response to the medical examination.

As a result of the literature diagnosis, the defendant diagnosed that he was suspected of being infected in light of the fact that he had the past history of heatitis, and the defendant was hospitalized into the plaintiff Council member, and then the defendant was conducted an emergency urine test, blood test, chest X-ray test, and so on.

The plaintiff did not observe the opinion of closure due to kidney absence or necessity as a result of the first-wave test. However, as a result of an emergency c- 5/HF’s normal value: 1-4/5.