채무부존재확인
1. Medical practice conducted by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) with respect to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) on or after October 20, 2005, including medical treatment, etc.
Basic Facts
The Plaintiff is a dentist, and the Defendant visited the Plaintiff’s dental hospital from October 20, 2005 to receive dental treatment and treatment from the Plaintiff.
On September 2010, the Plaintiff performed a procedure of planting one sheet on the part of the defendant's 2nd part of the right side of the defendant's bad music (Ma15i).
On January 12, 2011, the Plaintiff performed a procedure for planting one sheet to the Defendant on the right-hand side of the above bad faith (Ma15i) and on the 2nd right-hand right-hand side of the bad faith (Ma15i) (Ma45i).
On June 14, 2011, the Plaintiff performed a procedure for planting the eggs to the first part of the left-hand department of the 1st part (Ma24i) on the left-hand side of the Plaintiff.
Of the three fluorries, ① the second fluoral right-hand fluort (Ma45i) of the plaintiff's three fluoral fluor, in a state in which the steel products were cut out and absorptioned, ② the second fluoral right-hand fluor (Ma15i) of the second fluoral right-hand fluoral was merged with the fluoral infection of the first fluoral right-hand fluoral (Ma24i). ③ The first fluoral on the left-hand fluoral left-hand fluor
[Ground of recognition] Defendant’s assertion as to Gap’s statement, the result of the physical appraisal commission to the head of the Egrative hospital for Egratives of Egratives of Egratives of Egratives of Egratives of Egratives of Egratives of Egratives of Egratives of Egratives and the purport of counterclaims of the entire pleadings, upon the Plaintiff’s recommendation
In the process of performing an operation from the plaintiff, the defendant was given a dynasium due to the bones cryp around the upper fryp, but the plaintiff did not find the cause but received an operation to remove the bones cryp from another dental hospital on February 23, 2012.
After that, the defendant, on July 2, 2012, had a long-of-standing flapsy and had the flapsy performed a new procedure, and among the process, he must extract all the upper parts of the flapsying with dynas by melting the bones with dynas.
As a result, the defendant did not receive proper treatment of the spawn who has planted the spawn because of the plaintiff's wrong spawn treatment and treatment, and the state of the spawn health of the spawn. Thus, the plaintiff suffered all damages due to the plaintiff's breach of duty of care in such treatment.