beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 75,146,489 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from February 1, 2012 to August 8, 2017.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On January 23, 2012, the Plaintiff: (a) released X-ray photographs from the original hospital because the pains of the bridge and the bridge have deteriorated; and (b) discharged X-ray photographs; (c) however, after returning home, the Plaintiff was placed in the emergency room of the Defendant hospital on January 24, 2012.
B. The Plaintiff complained of the doctor of the Defendant Hospital that “from 20 days to her bridge under the lusium.” The Plaintiff complained of symptoms that “the pains of the left alley and the bridge are more serious. To the extent that the Plaintiff is unable to walk or walk, it is serious to the extent that it is difficult to walk or walk, and it is difficult to lying on the wall.”
C. Around January 23, 2012, the Plaintiff was unable to see the urine and speaking of the urine and speaking within the original hospital from the time of the emergency room in the Defendant hospital. On the X-5 photograph taken by the original hospital, there was a narrow view on the Plaintiff’s 4-5 picture.
On January 25, 2012, the doctor of the defendant hospital transferred the plaintiff to the Gisung Hospital in order to improve the pain by viewing the plaintiff's symptoms as a radioactive channel from escape.
A copy of medical records (No. 1) transferred at the request of the plaintiff to the Goman Hospital.
‘The' includes the contents.
However, in light of the fact that the above copies of medical records were recorded as B by the Defendant Hospital on January 25, 2013, which is different from those of the maker(C) of the copy of medical records (certificate No. 2) issued by the Defendant Hospital to the Plaintiff on January 25, 2013, and that the evidence No. 2 (the copy of medical records) only stated as Planpain, prnnin, prnnMRI (e.g., the extension of the subsequent plan, as necessary), the above contents of the medical records (certificate No. 1) submitted by the Defendant Hospital were added later. At that time, it is difficult to believe that the above contents were added later. At the time, the doctor of the Defendant Hospital did not implement any tension on the urology, terology, and tension between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, and the copy of the medical records submitted by the Defendant Hospital (LR).