손해배상(의)
1. The Defendant’s KRW 5,00,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from December 8, 2010 to January 9, 2015.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On May 29, 2009, the Plaintiff visited Dsung surgery located in Gangnam-gu Seoul operated by the Defendant, who is a medical specialist in sex foreign service, and was consulted about co-mal surgery.
B. On June 29, 2009, the Plaintiff received melting alcohol from the Defendant to increase day (hereinafter “the first surgery”). C. On October 4, 2010, the Plaintiff was subject to the Defendant’s visit to the Defendant’s hospital to take advantage of crypology as the left-hand side, and received crypology correction and medication. On October 28, 2010, the Plaintiff received crypology correction and medication without crypology. D. On December 8, 2010, the Plaintiff received crypology correction from the Defendant to correct crypology (hereinafter “the second surgery”).
E. After the second surgery, the Plaintiff did not improve the symptoms of the coconcing, and had a chilling of the coconcing, transformation of the coconcing, and a chilling of the landing area. On October 2, 2013, the symptoms were improved following the removal of cream from other sexual surgery and the correction of the landing area.
【Based on Recognition: Evidence No. 1, Evidence No. 2 (including paper numbers), Evidence No. 3, Evidence No. 4 (including paper numbers), Evidence No. 5, Evidence No. 7, Evidence No. 10, evidence No. 10, and evidence No. 10, each E medical center's inquiry results, the purport of the whole pleadings as to each E medical center
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff suffered from the defendant had the first and second surgery, and the period passed after the defendant had the first and second surgery, has left to the left point of the place where the person was to undergo the surgery, and when the person suffered from the blood and respiratory distress due to the abath's abath's abath, the plaintiff
The defendant asserts that he/she has violated his/her duty to explain while failing to hear an explanation about operating methods or side effects.
나. 판단 (1) 의료행위상 주의의무 위반 여부 ㈎ 의료행위는 고도의 전문적 지식을 요하는...