손해배상(의)
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On April 24, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for medical treatment with the Plaintiff as to crypting surgery, which was conducted by the Defendant’s dental clinic. On May 3, 2012, the Defendant issued dental services Nos. 35 and 46 on May 3, 2012.
B. On August 30, 2012, the Defendant: (a) launched Plaintiff No. 33, and performed a procedure for planting 6 cryp to the Plaintiff.
(hereinafter “instant procedure”). C.
After the procedure of this case, the Plaintiff appealed on the left side side of the instant medical record. The Plaintiff’s medical record appraisal shows that the Plaintiff’s symptoms were affected by the subpathic spathic spathic spathic spathic spathic spathic spathic spathic spathic spathic spathic spathic spathic spac
[Ground of Recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 7 through 9, and 17, the result of the request for appraisal of medical records to the Korean Dental Association of this Court, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination as to the cause of action
A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff suffered from the plaintiff was caused by the following negligence by the defendant. As such, the defendant is obligated to pay KRW 22,083,380,00 to the plaintiff for medical expenses, transportation expenses, nursing expenses, and future medical expenses incurred by the plaintiff after treating the above symptoms. In addition, the defendant did not explain to the plaintiff for the side effects of the flaging procedure, etc., so the defendant is obligated to pay KRW 3,00,000 to the plaintiff for consolation money.
1) Despite the Plaintiff’s obligation to appropriately adjust the number of crypts due to the mouth and the absorption of the scheke, 7 crypt was laid off a day in a unreasonable manner, taking into account the Plaintiff’s dental condition and the absorption status of the scheke, but the Defendant is obliged to take into account the hospitalization after the operation in the case of a patient with a general disease, such as old age and high blood pressure, such as the Plaintiff, and to carefully observe and treat the patient after the operation. However, the Defendant is obliged to provide hospitalization to the Plaintiff after the operation.