beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 9,370,384 with respect to the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from February 27, 2012 to September 30, 2014.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The plaintiff is a person who undergoes a sex surgery at the c's level of "C" operated by the defendant, and the defendant is a doctor who operated the plaintiff.
B. On April 26, 2011, the Plaintiff received from the Defendant a sex surgery in the form of an abnormal cocoon (hereinafter “the first surgery”) by inserting the body of a person subject to a musta, etc. by inserting the body of a person subject to a mustache, etc. with the body of a person subject to a mustache, etc.
C. On May 31, 201, in order to improve symptoms, etc. during which both eyes are visible after the primary surgery, the Plaintiff was performed an operation to remove the crypted crypine (hereinafter “second operation”). D.
On February 27, 2012, the Plaintiff complained of a pain after the first and second surgery. On April 25, 2012, the Plaintiff complained of a pain, such as the completion date of the surgery, and the number of chests was effective. On February 27, 2012, hereinafter referred to as the “third surgery” collectively referred to as the “third surgery,” referring to the third surgery, 1, 2, and 3 types of third surgery, which finds the head of the pleat, and the Plaintiff took place. On April 25, 2012, the Plaintiff was given an operation to remove a part of the body in which the part of the hospital remains in the operation to reconstruct the lost eroposium. The Plaintiff was currently on the right side of the hospital, and there was a difference between the mouth and the right side part of the hospital, and there is no evidence of the Plaintiff’s physical evidence and the evidence of the entire court’s eporasium No. 1 or 5.
2. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. As a result of the fact-finding conducted on the Dsung branch of this Court, the president of the U.S., and the director of the Busan Hospital affiliated with the U.S. University, comprehensively taking into account the results of the request for the examination of medical records to the director of the U.S. Hospital affiliated with the U.S. University (the date of March 14, 2014, May 27, 2014), and the overall purport of arguments, the Plaintiff did not undergo the co-operation before the instant surgery.