1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On June 2016, the Plaintiff was conducted by the National Health Insurance Corporation at the National Health Insurance Corporation (hereinafter “Defendant Hospital”) from the National Health Insurance Corporation (hereinafter “Defendant Hospital”).

B. On June 17, 2016, the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff a notice of the result of the examination of protogram cancer (hereinafter “the notice of the result of the instant case”).

C. On February 14, 2017, the Plaintiff was diagnosed as protruding cancer in the organizational inspection of the size of 2.1 cm on the left-hand left-hand 2.1 cm, and was performed by the D Hospital on February 23, 201, for the left-hand fladation and surveillance fladation at D Hospital.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The summary of the plaintiff's assertion stated in the notice of the result of this case that "no appeal is filed" as a result of the protruding reading, and stated in the recommendation that "no opinion of provoking is found or any special circumstance is found for provokings for provokings for provokings for provokings."

However, on February 2017, the Plaintiff was diagnosed at two occasions, and the Defendant was at the time of the Plaintiff’s examination, and was at the time of the examination, by mistakenly diagnosing that the Plaintiff did not discover the Plaintiff’s chronic cancer and there was no error in the Plaintiff’s occurrence status.

In addition, the defendant knew that the plaintiff was a patient with a fatal organization, so even though he had sufficiently explained to the plaintiff that he was subject to an inspection of the protogram radio wave in addition to a simple protogram screening, he did not give such explanation to the plaintiff, and the defendant was negligent in violating the duty to explain.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages caused by the above negligence.

3. 판단 살피건대, 을 제1 내지 3호증의 각 기재에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면, ① 원고가 피고 병원에서 받은 건강 검진은 국민겅강보험공단에서 2년 마다...