A. On February 26, 2011, the Defendant: (a) transferred the Plaintiff’s hospital to the A Hospital operated by the Plaintiff with the lusium pain.

B. On February 28, 2011, the Plaintiff diagnosed the Defendant’s symptoms as the escape from a protruding signboard, and prescribed for strengthening the human body. On the same day, the Plaintiff’s doctor C, an employee of the Plaintiff, injected the human body strengthening injection into the Defendant on the same day.

(hereinafter “instant medical treatment”). C.

The Defendant filed a claim for damages with the Plaintiff by asserting that the instant medical treatment was rendered more severe pains.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without a partial dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. In a lawsuit seeking confirmation of non-existence of a monetary obligation, if the plaintiff, who is the debtor, claims in advance to deny the fact that the cause of the debt occurred by specifying the first claim, the defendant, as the creditor, bears the burden of proof of proof as to the facts

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da45259, Mar. 13, 1998). The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff suffered damage to negotisis, pain, etc. due to injection prescribed on February 28, 2011, and thus, it is not sufficient to acknowledge the Defendant’s assertion solely on the basis of each description of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the plaintiff's damage liability against the defendant in relation to the treatment of this case does not exist, and as long as the defendant contests this, the plaintiff has a benefit to seek confirmation of non-existence of obligation.

3. According to the conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.