beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.09.28 2015가단5081191

손해배상(의)

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On December 17, 2011, the Plaintiff visited the Defendant Hospital and consulted about the extension of the length of the sound, and received the Defendant’s leappering surgery (hereinafter “the primary surgery”) on December 26, 201.

B. After receiving the above surgery, the Plaintiff was given a reduced length to the Defendant than before the surgery, and was given an injection treatment from the Defendant in order to improve the attachment of the part of the surgery for six months by complaining of the post-ex post-exploitation with a negative diameter.

C. On July 14, 201, the Plaintiff received from the Defendant an extension operation of the sound diameter (hereinafter “the second operation”) for the extension of the length of the sound diameter.

After the second operation, the Plaintiff was diagnosed by the Defendant on December 27, 2013, and found that the pulp girical ppuri was fiberized on the part of the surgery, and received treatment for s the stroke injection five times until July 25, 2013.

On October 26, 2013, the Plaintiff did not show symptoms, and requested the Defendant to remove and change the truth inserted in the lux. On October 26, 2013, the Defendant performed an operation to remove the luxity of the lux, which was inserted into the Plaintiff’s lux, (hereinafter “third operation”).

E. At present, the length of the Plaintiff’s sound is 5.5 cm in e.g., 5 cm in e.g., 8.5 cm in e.g., e., e., g., e., g., g., e., g.

[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and Eul evidence Nos. 2, the result of the commission of physical examination to the Central University Hospital of this Court, the result of the commission of medical examination to the Gangwon-do Hospital for the examination of medical records, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1, while carrying out the first operation, the Defendant reduced the length of the sound landscape to more than before the surgery due to improper surgery, and caused the second and third surgery to be performed.