손해배상(의)
1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff A, which corresponds to the money ordered to be paid below, shall be revoked.
2...
1. Basic facts
A. The relevant Plaintiff A is a person who received a medical treatment in E value, while Plaintiff B and C are the parents of Plaintiff A.
The defendant is a doctor who has performed the medical treatment for plaintiffs A in Eche division.
B. Around August 2007, Plaintiff A received an operation to insert the actual container at the frontum (hereinafter “Nonindicted hospital”) from the F sexual surgery (hereinafter “Nonindicted hospital”) on May 21, 2008, using the drafting of May 21, 2008, hump hump hump hump hump hump (hereinafter “the first operation”) and hump hump hump (the end of the hump) after removing existing pump hump hump (hereinafter “the second operation”), and around July 2, 2009, Plaintiff A received the second operation (the bones of the hump’s bones of the hump statement) and the second operation (hereinafter “the second operation”).
(2) On May 6, 2010, Plaintiff A complained of the right entrance to the port while indicating the dissatisfaction against the chin shape at the Non-Party hospital.
C. (1) On July 16, 2010, in order to resolve complaints against the chromatic shape, Plaintiff A taken photographs of the eromatic CT from Echip and consulted with medical professionals, etc., and on July 20, 2010, Plaintiff A received echip echip echip surgery (hereinafter “echip surgery”) and Echip surgery (hereinafter “echip surgery”).
(2) On July 27, 2010, Plaintiff A complained of symptoms, such as the lower-standing level below the left-hand side, when Plaintiff A was performed an surgery at Eche division, and opened at the Non-Party hospital.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 7 (including branch numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether any bad result has occurred from the instant surgery;
A. The plaintiffs' assertion of this case caused damage to the plaintiff A's inner gymal disorder or damage to the plaintiff A's inner gymal disorder due to the plaintiff's claim of this case.
The long-term entry as described in paragraph (2).