채무부존재확인
1. The Plaintiff’s medical treatment conducted against the Defendant from April 11, 2016 to May 10, 2016.
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is a dentist who operates the Incheon Bupyeong-gu C building and the Dental clinic located in 401 (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s dental clinic”). The Defendant is a person who, from that time to May 10, 2016, entered the Plaintiff’s dental clinic due to dental ambling, temporary dental surgery, dental infection, etc. (hereinafter “instant procedure”).
B. On April 11, 2016, the treatment details of the instant surgery, etc.: (a) on April 11, 201, 2016; (b) on the oral examination on Apr. 12, 2016; (c) the equipment to obtain an increase in the upper ambane for temporary young children on Apr. 20, 2016; (d) the removal of Ma45-Ma47 Bobrics; (e) the removal of Ma45-Ma47 Bobrics; and (e) the lacing type without sealing, on Apr. 21, 2016; and (e) the equipment to perform the surgery on Apr. 27, 2016; and (e) the equipment to perform the surgery on Apr. 10, 2016; and (e) the equipment to perform the ambalian-type lave-type 27,42,444 ambalian-type pul.
The Plaintiff prepared and issued a written confirmation to the Defendant, stating, “The Plaintiff shall be responsible for the occurrence of the problem of the Plaintiff’s infant after the Plaintiff’s oral examination and treatment, such as 1 to 2 times the above-mentioned patient’s bad right-hand part of the patient’s oral examination and treatment.”
[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul's evidence Nos. 1 and 8, and the result of the entrustment of medical records to the head of the Macheon-do University of the Republic of Korea, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion
A. The Plaintiff performed the instant procedure in a normal manner with respect to the Defendant, and there was no problem regarding the Plaintiff’s medical plan, preliminary inspection, and method of the procedure.
Since symptoms, such as pacife, etc., presented to the defendant are caused by the defendant's pacifism, there is no obligation of the plaintiff to compensate for damages against the defendant in relation to medical treatment including the instant procedure.
B. Defendant 1.