logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2016.09.08 2015가단117537
손해배상(의)
Text

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is a dentist operating G dental clinics located in Daegu Jung-gu, Daegu-gu.

B. H (hereinafter “the deceased”) visited the above dental services to undergo dental treatment on February 27, 2015 and consultation with respect to future plans for medical treatment, and on March 4, 2015, by visiting the said dental services.

3. 12. Treatment was received twice;

C. On March 16, 2015, the Deceased: (a) visited the foregoing dental license again to undergo an inspection on the measurement of electricity for the dental examination (the method of examining whether or not there is living capabilities in a manner that leads to the reaction of pulp sulphism within water control by causing an electric sulphism to a pulp sulphr and stopy; and (b) he/she was killed in the state of smoking and beatiscing with a treatment chair after he/she sited therein; (c)

Accordingly, the Defendant immediately reported to the 119 Emergency Rescue Team, and the Deceased transferred to the 119 Emergency Rescue Team after the on-site measures were taken by the 119 Emergency Rescue Team, but symptoms of low-carbon brain damage caused by its recovery to the Gyeongbuk University Hospital were lost on March 26, 2015.

E. The plaintiff A is the deceased's spouse, and the plaintiff B, C, and D are children.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Gap evidence 3-1 through 6, Gap evidence 4-1, 2, Gap evidence 5-1, 2, Gap evidence 6, Eul evidence 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the plaintiffs' claims

A. As to the assertion of breach of the duty to explain or breach of the duty to explain the 1st century, the Plaintiffs neglected to explain the merger and stress that may occur at the time of dental treatment while treating the Deceased, who is a telegraphic patient. Since the Deceased had past history of the telegraphic disease, the Plaintiffs neglected to take all measures to prevent the occurrence of a complicationic disease by properly grasping the conditions of the telegraphic disease, such as conducting a diagnosis on the telegraphic disease and identifying the current treatment status, and neglected to provide treatment.

arrow