beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On June 28, 2012, the Plaintiff first filed a dental clinic operated by the Defendant, and received medical treatment for 12 dental clinics over 40 occasions from the Defendant until May 11, 2015.
B. The Plaintiff received treatment from the Defendant, from August 28, 2012 to March 15, 2014, 42, and 43 patonia (hereinafter referred to as the “Patonia”) on 14 occasions over 13 occasions from August 19, 2014 to May 11, 2015 with respect to each 14 patonia (hereinafter referred to as the “Patonia 1 patonia”) on catia (hereinafter referred to as the “Patonia”), and received treatment, such as catru treatment, catru disinfection, and adjustment of catia, which was covered by each of the above catia during each treatment process.
[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that he received dental treatment from the Defendant for three years, and even until the completion of the dental treatment Nos. 42 and 43, the Plaintiff’s treatment had been revealed to the point where it was sweeted, and was in the same condition as the 14th son, and only when the present body is not good, it was turned out to the point where it was sweeted, so long as the anesthesia of the skin face part outside of 42 and 43 is not proper until now.
This is suspected to be caused by the Defendant’s negligence in treatment, and in particular, the Defendant continued to provide a critical negligence in the treatment and anesthesia conducted at the early treatment stage of 42 and 43, and accordingly led to the result that anesthesia was not unfasible by having anesthesia conducted at least 10 times.
In addition, it seems that the removal of crine and the taking of crine in the treatment of 14 times is wrong.
Therefore, the defendant is related to the plaintiff's expenses incurred by the plaintiff due to the above defendant's negligence in relation to KRW 1.5 million and the cost of care for commuting treatment.