손해배상(의)
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. On September 7, 2012, the Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) received the result of the examination of the fact that the Plaintiff was at the Defendant Hospital after undergoing the CT photographing test; and (b) was hospitalized in the Defendant Hospital under the medical staff’s opinion that the said symptoms might have been at least 80 to 90%; (c) received medication of the waste cancer treatment chemicals from October 8, 2012; and (d) subsequently received an operation to partially cut off the Plaintiff’s waste (hereinafter “instant operation”).
(A) The Defendant hospital’s performance of the foregoing surgery on the Plaintiff refers to a broad-scale saving operation of the method to cut off all of the parts where cancer cells are likely to spread, in addition to the part where the surgery was performed. However, as a result of the organizational examination conducted after the instant surgery, it was revealed that the difference discovered in the Plaintiff’s closure was caused by pulmonary tuberculosis, not pulmonary cancer. As such, given that the Plaintiff’s fault in the medical personnel of Defendant Hospital, caused the Plaintiff to take administration of unnecessary anti-explosion and to refrain from saving, the Defendant hospital is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for any property damage and mental distress inflicted on the Plaintiff.
2. In light of the following circumstances, it is difficult to recognize the medical personnel of the Defendant Hospital as negligence in the diagnosis and treatment of the alcohol of this case, in view of the statement of the evidence submitted in this case and the response of the request for appraisal of medical records to the director of the Hanyang University Hospital in this Court.
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case on the premise that the defendant hospital was negligent in medical care as to the alcohol of this case is without merit.
① Around 2009, the Plaintiff underwent Athroid cancer surgery at the Defendant hospital, and was regularly inspected on whether or not cancer occurred or not at the Defendant hospital. ② Compared with the chest CT test taken by the Plaintiff at the Defendant hospital on June 13, 201, and the chest CT test taken on September 7, 2012, which was taken before the instant surgery, the Plaintiff’s chest CT test results.