beta
Text
1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff as well as KRW 97,746,603, and the Defendants’ amounting thereto from January 30, 2012 to January 15, 2015.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The plaintiff as the party to the case 1 is below
(c).
E. As stated in paragraph (1), “E Hospital” located in Daegu Jung-gu D (hereinafter “Defendant Hospital”) is a person who undergone a surgery at least three times.
2 For the plaintiff, defendant C:
(c).
A person who performs two times such as paragraph (1), and Defendant B is a former employer of Defendant C, who operates the Defendant Hospital.
B. On November 1, 2011, the Plaintiff entered the Army and was trained at the 23th Armed Forces Education Team, and received outpatients from the Armed Forces Hospital on November 22, 2011. (2) The Plaintiff continuously complained of an essential part, even after being placed in the National Armed Forces Hospital. On January 12, 2012, the Plaintiff was diagnosed as “the escape certificate of a protruding signboard centered on the compromise 5-cheon No. 1, 2000, and 3 right-hand,” as a result of the RI inspection conducted by the MF on January 12, 2012.
3) On January 16, 2012, the medical personnel of the Armed Forces Gangseo-gu Hospital implemented the Plaintiff’s “Tang-5 Gyeongcheon 1, the left-hand 1, and the selective negotition blocking method” against the Plaintiff. 4) On January 26, 2012, the Plaintiff discharged the Plaintiff from the Armed Forces Hospital on January 26, 2012.
C. Even after the first operation and the past 1) at the Defendant Hospital, the Plaintiff complained of symptoms, such as everbucks, bucks, spucks, spacks, and spacks. On January 27, 2012, the Defendant Hospital’s medical personnel diagnosed the Plaintiff as “the escape and sprinking of the central confluort board No. 5-300,000,” and the Defendant Hospital’s medical personnel diagnosed the Plaintiff as “the sprinke spine and other confluent signboards accompanied by nephal disease.” 2) On January 30, 2012, the Defendant C, the doctor of the Defendant Hospital, who was a doctor of the Defendant Hospital, performed the spack drive removal on the part No. 5-1,000, the Plaintiff’s spopic disc.
(hereinafter referred to as “the first operation of this case”). The time of the sequence is right.