The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Basic Facts

A. On November 19, 2016, at around 02:28, the Plaintiff: (a) saw symptoms of double and fish drums; (b) arrived at the emergency room of the Defendant hospital at around 02:46 of the same day by using the 119 first-aid vehicle after requesting emergency medical services to the Gwangju Southern-nam Fire Fighting Station; and (c) received medical treatment from the Defendant hospital from around 02:49 of the same day.

B. Around 03:06 on the same day, the medical personnel of the Defendant Hospital performed the CT test for the Plaintiff, and the result of the test confirmed that there was no stroke-stroke, and the Plaintiff administered an strokein, which is the humphoid, to the Plaintiff.

C. At around 03:51 on the same day, the medical personnel of the Defendant Hospital conducted the RoI and the RoA test with respect to the Plaintiff, and as a result of the inspection, the RoI confirmed the brain color on the left-hand base, but the RoA did not seem to have closed the MaDA.

Since the aggravation of symptoms, the medical personnel of the defendant hospital conducted the RoI test again for the plaintiff at around 22:50 on the same day, and it was confirmed that the size of brain color increases.

On August 27, 2019, the Plaintiff was judged as a brain-disease disability (rejudgment) with a serious degree of degree.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the result of the request for appraisal of medical records to B association of this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is due to negligence on the part of the Defendant hospital’s medical staff, even though the medical staff of the Defendant hospital should closely examine the Plaintiff’s symptoms that have been loaded in the first-aid vehicle due to cerebral symptoms, conduct a prompt inspection, such as MRI, and transfer them to the Company, and undergo appropriate measures, such as blood exclusive withdrawal administration. Even if the Defendant hospital’s medical staff is not subject to the administration of blood exclusive withdrawal at the time of the emergency room for home affairs, and is not found to have been negligent by delay in the Defendant hospital, the medical staff of the Defendant hospital was at the hospital’s negligence, i.e., the Plaintiff’s

Due to the above negligence of the medical personnel of the defendant hospital, the plaintiff was judged to have a cerebral disability on June 16, 2017.