손해배상(의)
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
1. The first instance court;
1. The court's explanation of this case is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for dismissal or addition as follows. Thus, the court's explanation of this case is accepted by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
제2면 마지막 행부터 제3면 제3행까지 부분을 아래와 같이 고침 「마. 원고는 2011. 11. 26. D병원에 내원하여 목이 꺾이면서 찌릿한 후 두통, 어지럼증 등 증상을 겪고 있다고 호소하였고, 위 병원 의료진은 상급병원의 신경과 상담을 받아보고 증상이 지속될 경우에는 정밀재검사를 받아보도록 권유하였다.」 제3면 밑에서 제3행, 제5면 제3행의 각「이 법원의」부분을「제1심 법원의」로 고침 제5면 제7행의「②」부터 제10행의「③」사이 부분을 아래와 같이 고침 「원고가 이 사건 시술 약 1개월 후인 2011. 11. 26. D병원에서 진료를 받을 당시 작성된 진료기록부에는 원고가 전 날 혈압이 낮았다고 하면서 “50일 전 목이 꺾이면서 목이 찌릿하였고, 한의원에서 침을 맞았다”(원고는 2011. 10. 8. 피고 한의원이 아닌 다른 한의원에서 침술을 시술받은 것으로 보인다.
The evidence No. 7 and No. 7 stated that “A was enforced by the other Council members due to the continued existence of evidence,” and “Isna Act from Oct. 10 to Oct. 10, 201,” and “Isna Act continued to exist, and there was two copies, a drums, and an aesthetic drums,” and the medical personnel of the above hospital recommended the Plaintiff to undergo precise re-examination when they were diagnosed as a result of video examination as a light signboard escape certificate. The Plaintiff recommended the Plaintiff to undergo the precise re-examination when they were diagnosed at the E Hospital on Mar. 2012 after being treated at the E Hospital for more than three months after the date of the examination, and the Plaintiff told that the instant procedure was caused a light pain (the medical records prepared by the Plaintiff at the Hospital on Feb. 28, 2012).