(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2014.07.16 2013가합541837

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2014.07.16 2013가합541837

채무부존재확인

Text

1. The Plaintiff’s Defendant is related to the surgery performed by the Defendant on May 28, 2013 and June 7, 2013.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The relevant Plaintiff is an intention to operate a “D Council member” in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “Plaintiff Council member”).

On May 28, 2013 and June 7, 2013, the Defendant received a sex surgery from the Plaintiff Council member twice.

B. Around January 2013, 2013, the Defendant received a double-mixed surgery and co-mar surgery. Around May 2013, 2013, the Defendant removed relic inserted in coaches. Around May 2013, the Defendant was to undergo an operation to improve the colon and undergo an operation to correct double-marcation. (2) The Plaintiff performed melting surgery against the Defendant on May 28, 2013 (hereinafter “the first operation”), and performed a multiple-marcing operation and relic location correction (hereinafter “the first operation”), on June 7, 2013.

(3) At the time of each of the instant operations, the Defendant signed and submitted to the Plaintiff a written consent to the operation to the effect that “the occurrence of a complication, scarcity, salt, etc. may be recognized, and that the result of the operation could not be seen as having been Defendant’s expectations.” (c) The Defendant asserted the Defendant’s side effects around June 15, 2013, at the time of the instant first operation, laid down the brush, and the Plaintiff was fluent with the negligence at the time of the instant first operation. After each of the instant operations, the Defendant asserted that, at around June 15, 2013, the Plaintiff was fluent with the Plaintiff at the time of the instant first operation, and that, after each of the instant operations, the nose was displayed and the brupted with the unfolded name of a pair. The grounds for recognition was without any dispute, No. 1 No. 1 (including No. 1).

statement, the purport of the whole pleading

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Plaintiff performed each of the instant surgery according to a normal operation process with his/her duty of care.

The symptoms indicating the defendant's non-alley or cocoin are not related to the part of the first operation of this case, and the defendant's symptoms are not related to the part of the first operation of this case.

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2015.09.24 2014나2027287

-광주지방법원 2014.04.02 2013가단36120

-광주지방법원 2015.03.27 2014나4664

-서울중앙지방법원 2014.11.13 2013나20792

-대전지방법원천안지원 2015.09.18 2014가합103612