logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.01.25 2014가단33129
채무부존재확인
Text

1. From November 25, 2010 to February 21, 2011, the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) provided medical treatment from the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)’s Council member, who has settled in the management of the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

Reasons

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed as the same.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. From around 2004, the Defendant has been given treatment due to the climatic, urine, non-fluorial base, typosis, congrosis, congrative signboards, acute and chronic non-compactitis, alphrosis, acute hemosis, alphrosis, alphrosis contact congrosis, chirrosis, chronic hemosis, etc.

B. In order to treat pains on the right-hand side, and pains on the left-hand side, the Defendant shall do so from November 25, 2010 to February 21, 201, at the Chinwon operated by the Plaintiff from November 25, 201 to February 21, 201.

Receiving treatment by law, etc.

(hereinafter referred to as the instant treatment) C.

Even after the treatment of this case, the Defendant received treatment due to Alphurine, polymitis, damage to a variety of body parts, chroposis, chroposis, chroposis, alphrosis, alphrosis, acute hemitis, acute hemitis, hypitis, and hemitis, etc.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 2 through 7, and 15, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant's assertion is not due to the plaintiff's medical negligence but due to the defendant's physical negligence, but due to the defendant's claim that the defendant had caused the side effects of the treatment of this case. Thus, the plaintiff asserts that the defendant's claim for the confirmation of the existence of the obligation based on the treatment of this case exists.

In this regard, the defendant is responsible for compensating the defendant for damages because the plaintiff's medical malpractice and violation of the duty to explain of the plaintiff's medical negligence in the treatment of this case caused a new or existing symptoms such as mashitis, influence, fluence, fluora and bridge part of the bridge, math disc, malicious disc, brushing, brushing, fluor, fluor, and all kinds of pathic diseases such as mathic disease.

arrow