beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 3,00,000 to Plaintiff A, as well as 5% per annum from July 20, 2015 to November 14, 2017, respectively.
Reasons
Basic Facts
The defendant is a doctor who operates the "Ethical clinic" located in Busan Jung-gu (hereinafter referred to as the "instant clinic"), and the plaintiff A is a person who received medical treatment from the instant clinic, and the plaintiff B is a wife of the plaintiff A.
Plaintiff
A On July 20, 2015, a member of the instant Council was subject to multi-pactary nuclear diagnosis after undergoing an anti-pactary inspection.
Plaintiff
A From 15:00 on the same day, from around 3:7:00 to around 11:00 of the Defendant’s resistance, he/she received a fundamental nuclear crypology and a failure test (hereinafter “instant surgery”) that crypology and crypology (hereinafter “instant surgery”), and was hospitalized in the instant member on the same day, and discharged on July 21, 2015.
Plaintiff
A, after the discharge, was received from the instant Council member by July 31, 2015, and was hospitalized in G Hospital until August 13, 2015. On August 1, 2015, A filed a petition for an anti-psychotropic pain certificate, an anti-rhetoral transfusion, and an ex officio within G Hospital located in Busan Metropolitan Government F, and was hospitalized on the same day, and was diagnosed on August 4, 2015, and was hospitalized in G Hospital by August 13, 2015.
Since then, Plaintiff A received outpatient treatment at G Hospital, and was hospitalized again at G Hospital on October 14, 2015, and was discharged on October 22, 2015, after receiving a re-explosion and dental diagnosis on October 15, 2015.
[Grounds for recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and Eul evidence Nos. 4 and 5, fact-finding with G Hospital of this court, and the defendant's assertion as to the defense before the whole purport of the argument, as the defendant's assertion was made with the defendant at the time of the operation of this case, and thus, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful as there is no benefit of protection of rights.
Judgment
In full view of the written evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the entire argument is as follows: (a) written statement prepared by Plaintiff A on July 20, 2015, stating that “I will not raise any objection to any event that may occur in the future in the course of performing the instant surgery (not taking responsibility).”