손해배상(의)
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. During the period from September 16, 200 to April 17, 2009, the Plaintiff was frequently discharged from the “Caman” member of the Defendant’s operation in Yangsan-si for the treatment of symptoms, such as infection. The Defendant, during the above period, provided medical treatment for the Plaintiff to delete part of the Plaintiff’s infant, such as the details of the attached medical treatment, is not in dispute between the parties, or can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings as stated in the evidence No. 1-1 and No. 1-1.
2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment
A. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant deleted the plaintiff's infant excessively beyond the necessary extent in the course of treating the plaintiff's infant, thereby causing injury to the plaintiff, such as the plaintiff's misappropriation, bad faith disorder, etc. The result is that the defendant's act occurred while conducting a wrong procedure contrary to the medical principles, and the defendant's act constitutes a tort. The defendant has a duty to compensate for all damages suffered by the plaintiff.
B. (1) In order to hold a patient liable for tort due to a medical doctor’s breach of the duty of care in medical practice, the occurrence of damages, and the causal link between the two should be proved respectively (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da61402, Sept. 28, 2006). If a patient suffered damages in the course of receiving medical treatment, considering the specificity of the medical practice, even if considering the specificity of the medical practice, there was a medical negligence in the course of a series of medical practice, and there was no other cause between the act and the occurrence of damages, the causal link between the medical practice and the occurrence of damages can be acknowledged only after the patient proves by the patient.
I would like to say.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Da62505 Decided June 24, 2010, etc.). (2) First, in order to recognize the violation of the duty of care, the Defendant’s act of treating the Plaintiff’s infant partially deleted.