logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2019.11.21 2016가단19844
진료비
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a juristic person operating a C Hospital located in Seo-gu, Busan (hereinafter “instant hospital”), and the Defendant is a person who received treatment for symptoms after the Aboard removal operation and treatment at the instant hospital as seen below.

B. The defendant suffered symptoms from the operation of this case and abnormal symptoms to the defendant 1) around 192. Around 2003, the defendant received the right-hand side sprinking sprinking sprinking from the hospital of this case due to the right-hand side sprinking at the hospital of this case. Since around March 2003, the hospital of this case received treatment from the hospital of this case as the sprinking sprinking sprinking sprinking and salting sprinking sprinking sprinking on the left-hand side (hereinafter "the operation of this case").

(2) Upon receiving the instant surgery, the Defendant showed calcium sium sium sium sium in terms of low losses due to the deterioration of the function of the skin line after the instant surgery. Accordingly, E and F, a doctor of the instant hospital from November 201 to October 2015, the Defendant prescribed the drugs “sium sium sium sium” (hereinafter “instant drugs”) for the purpose of treating the Defendant’s symptoms and provided the treatment using the drugs for the purpose of treating the said symptoms.

(C) On November 1, 2015, the Defendant filed a lawsuit seeking damages against D, E, and F, who are doctors of the instant hospital, with Busan District Court Decision 2015Ga239863, on November 16, 2015.

In the above lawsuit, the defendant asserted D's negligence and violation of D's duty of explanation in the course of the instant surgery, and violation of E's negligence and duty of explanation in the course of the instant treatment. However, D's violation of duty of explanation prior to the instant surgery is recognized only, and D's payment of KRW 1.5 million and delay damages to the defendant on October 10, 2017.

arrow