logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2019.01.17 2016가단111222
손해배상(의)
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 10,687,985 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from November 26, 2014 to January 17, 2019.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On November 21, 2014, the Plaintiff was diagnosed with chronic pyrosis accompanied by diversified fences, as a result of the examination of the protogram shooting (CT; hereinafter referred to as “CT”) conducted by a member of the National Assembly located in Seocheon-si and a member of the National Assembly, and received the same diagnosis from the medical staff of the Defendant hospital (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant hospital”).

B. On November 25, 2014, the Plaintiff was hospitalized in the Defendant Hospital, and on November 26, 2014, performed la2copcopcopcopcopic gate-making (hereinafter “first operation”) from the medical staff of the Defendant Hospital on November 26, 2014. At the time, the Plaintiff’s gate was growing and the Plaintiff was accompanied by the gate wall and oil, causing severe salt; however, salt was not fasted to the local organization around the gate, but there was a multi-copic mix of 3 to 4 meters in diameter and 1c meters in diameter in the gate.

C. From November 27, 2014, the Plaintiff complained of the clothes continuously from November 27, 2014, and showed symptoms of leakage of the extracts through Jkson-Prat Drain connected to the part of the surgery.

Accordingly, on December 1, 2014, the medical staff of the Defendant Hospital performed Dayuct Chothogram to the Plaintiff on the opening and wing crym, and confirmed that the cBD, Common Muct, and General Tract (CHD, Common CHD, and Common Ruct) were cut together with the crypt, and that the crym source was leaked at the cutting of the Tyc branch, and that there was a leakage of the crym in the Zux-en-Y) factory colonization, and the crymology of the Defendant Hospital’s medical records on the 2nd operation of the Defendant Hospital (hereinafter referred to as “2nd operation”), but the crymology of the Plaintiff Hospital’s medical records on the 3rd operation of the Defendant Hospital’s medical records, the 3rd operation records, and the 3rd operation records of the Defendant Hospital’s medical records on the 3rd operation of the Plaintiff Hospital.

arrow