beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.09.11 2019가단5243348

손해배상(의)

Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 9,414,590 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 5% from November 3, 2018 to September 11, 2020, and the following.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The defendant is operating D's off-type department (hereinafter "the hospital of this case") in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and the plaintiff is working for E's office in the same building as E's office (hereinafter "the E's office of this case") in the same building.

B. On November 2, 2018, the Plaintiff, on the left side of the Plaintiff, caused pains caused by the symptoms of a fence (finite finite finite finite finite finite finite finite finite finite)

C. On November 2, 2018, the Defendant, at the instant hospital around 13:00, provided the Plaintiff with the stroke in order to alleviate the pain on the left side, etc. (hereinafter “the instant treatment”). After having taken the stroke, the Plaintiff complained of the difficulty of respiratory and the pain on the chest. On the same day, at the X-ray test around 19:00, the Plaintiff was diagnosed that the strokey had caused the Plaintiff’s waste stroke as an external wound.

The Plaintiff was hospitalized in the F Hospital from November 2, 2018 to June 11, 201, and was treated with a scarcity, such as scarleting.

【Fact-finding without a dispute over the ground for recognition】 Each entry of Gap's evidence of subparagraphs 1 through 7 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. In order to recognize liability for tort due to breach of duty of care or nonperformance in medical practice by the Defendant’s medical malpractice, there should be causation between breach of duty of care in medical practice, occurrence of damages, and breach of duty of care, and occurrence of damages.

With respect to the instant case, there is no dispute between the parties that the Defendant erred in injecting the Plaintiff’s waste body at the time of the instant procedure and caused the Plaintiff’s injury to the Plaintiff. As such, the Defendant does not cause damage to the body organ during the process of taking injection as a doctor to perform the instant procedure.