손해배상(의)
1. The plaintiff's appeal is all 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. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing this case is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition or dismissal as follows. Thus, it is citing this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. On the third side of the third side of the judgment of the court of first instance, "A doctor F belonging to the defendant hospital" in the third side of the judgment of the court of first instance checks the quantity of 1.16 cm away in the direction of 2:0 cm away from the plaintiff's left right as a result of the test on the extension
3.3. Around March, the Plaintiff recommended the Plaintiff to undergo a periodic verification and an inspection six months after the date of the inspection.
“The Defendant C confirms, as a result of the inspection of the protruding wave, that the quantity of species of 1.16cc in the direction of 2:00 to the left left side of the Plaintiff, and that year.
3.3. Around March, through the nurseF affiliated with the Defendant Hospital, notified the Plaintiff of the results of the examination, and recommended the Plaintiff to undergo a periodic confirmation and an inspection six months after the date of the examination.
“A doctor F, around August 10, 201, notified the Plaintiff of the result of the prone of the prone radio wave and recommended a periodic tracking test on August 10, 201.
“Defendant C, around August 10, 201, notified the Plaintiff of the results of the inspection through the nurse F and recommended the periodic tracking inspection.
“Along with the foregoing, the first instance court’s “Gsanbu” in the sixth 11th part of the judgment of the first instance shall be deemed to be “Seoul Asan Hospital.” In the judgment of the first instance court, “as to the assertion of negligence in the diagnosis,” the grounds for recognition of “as to the assertion of negligence in the diagnosis,” adding “the result of the entrustment of the examination of medical records with respect to the head of this court Toll, Seoul University Hospital,” and add the following as to the last part of the said item:
(6) An examination of cinematographic images and an examination of cinematographic portraits, which are used as a selective examination tool, where it is suspected of cancer as a result of the examination, an additional organizational examination, etc. shall be conducted, and the current medical insurance system does not allow the patient to hear the explanation of the doctor and select the examination at his/her discretion.