손해배상(의)
1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.
1. Basic facts
A. On April 27, 2017, when Plaintiff A was found to have a paper on the closed left leaves after undergoing a TT inspection, etc. by the Defendant’s establishment at the Mannam University Hospital, which was the cause of the Defendant’s subdivision, the Plaintiff A received the waste left leaves (hereinafter “the instant operation”) on May 25, 2017 after undergoing the intra-specopic creamble (hereinafter “this case’s operation”). Plaintiff B’s wife and the rest of the Plaintiffs are their respective children.
B. The diagnosis before the surgery against Plaintiff A was conducted on the following grounds: “The clinical presumption, the organ’s organ, or the left side” but the diagnosis after the surgery was “final diagnosis, the organ’s organ, and the left side.”
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap Nos. 1, 2 (including additional numbers), Eul's 1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The plaintiffs' assertion and its determination of the plaintiffs were conducted by the defendant hospital on April 27, 2017, and they were under the surgery on May 25, 2017, which was conducted by the defendant hospital, and they were not closed cancer after the surgery. It was found that the medical personnel belonging to the defendant, or because the F, which is a doctor belonging to the defendant, explain the plaintiffs to the plaintiffs, not pulmonary cancer, was caused by the pulmonary cancer, which was caused by the pulmonary cancer, the part of the pulmonary cancer was lost, and the damage was caused by the c8,861,408 won in total [38,861,410 won in total, 21,4396 won in daily income [the defendant is liable for consolation money for 300,000 won in total for 4,936,103 won in daily income, 19% in labor loss rate of 200,000 won in each of the plaintiff's medical personnel's damages.
The medical personnel belonging to the defendant had any negligence on the diagnosis of the pulmonary cancer for the plaintiff A.
There is no evidence to prove that the identification of the pulmonary cancer before the operation was confirmed as the pulmonary cancer, and the F before the operation is against the plaintiffs.