beta
Text
The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The plaintiff asserts to the following purport.
A. On April 2010, the Plaintiff visited the mountain father and the hospital run by the Defendant and received medical treatment from the Defendant. At the time, the Defendant did not conduct a so-called shot wave test to the Plaintiff without conducting a so-called shot wave test.
In a false manner, the guidance was provided.
B. In addition, the Defendant treated the Plaintiff as not having any special error, and later, it became clear that the Plaintiff was the head of the relevant hospital with the result of the treatment at another hospital.
The defendant suffered damages from the defendant's erroneous illness that could not be treated from time to time.
(c)
The Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 200,000,000 as damages for the above unlawful act.
2. In light of the overall purport of the statement and change of evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 as to the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff visited the Defendant’s hospital on April 25, 2018 for the purpose of issuing a written request for medical treatment to receive treatment from the third medical institution. However, as alleged by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff did not specify whether the Plaintiff was an internal employee of the Defendant’s hospital in order to receive treatment of her life-long or her pre-service class, etc. as alleged by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff filed two criminal charges against the Defendant on the part of her occupational injury, fraud, etc. on two occasions, on the ground that the Plaintiff did not receive medical treatment from the Defendant’s operating hospital, and the period of prescription has expired, and it is difficult to recognize the relationship with the Defendant.
3. As such, the Plaintiff’s claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench. (Although the Plaintiff applied for the resumption of argument in this court on December 29, 2020, it is difficult for the Plaintiff to be liable to the Plaintiff prior to the conclusion of the instant pleading.)