logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.05.17 2017가합522438
영업방해금지
Text

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is the representative of the C Hospital (hereinafter "the hospital of this case"), who is an attorney-at-law as the birth of the non-party D, the representative of the hospital of this case, and the defendant was hospitalized in the above hospital.

B. On June 12, 2015, the Defendant hospitalized the instant hospital and gave birth to the following day.

The Defendant was administered in a newborn baby room jointly used by the instant hospital and the E Postnatal Care Center (hereinafter “instant kitchen”) whose representative is the Plaintiff’s spouse, and the Defendant was hospitalized on the fifth floor of the building of the instant hospital, and was accommodated in the F Care Center on the fourth floor of the same building on June 19, 2015, and was engaged in postnatal care.

If the kitchen of this case is placed with a pen for the newborn baby room and a barge for the newborn baby room, and the mother of a woman in a milch with a smil with a smil with a smil with a smil with a smil with a smil with a smil with a smil with a smil with a smil with a smil with a smil with a smil with a smil with a smil with a smil

At around 00:30 on June 20, 2015, the Defendant: (a) laid the milch for storage of milk with a frighting frighting frighting frighting frighting frighting frighting frighting frighting frighting frighting frighting frighting frighting frighting frighting frighting.

At around 15:00 on June 21, 2015, the Defendant filed an objection to the instant cook, stating that the Defendant’s milies attached with a suck batteries stating “F” to the Defendant’s fortress, and that the Defendant “whether the other mother’s implied milch is drinking to the child of this case,” and raised an objection to the instant cook.

C. On August 24, 2016, the Defendant appeared as a witness of Daejeon District Court Decision 2016Da356D on August 24, 2016. The Plaintiff, who was a defense counsel, was a witness of the witness examination, is “whether high level of fraud is changed or is forgotten one day.”

arrow