beta
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 defendant school juristic person B (hereinafter "the defendant juristic person") is a juristic person that operates a hospital (hereinafter "the hospital of this case") and the defendant C is a medical specialist belonging to the hospital of this case, who is in charge of diagnosis and treatment of the plaintiff.
B. (1) On January 16, 2014, the Plaintiff appears to have been issued a written request for medical treatment for the medical treatment of the name-based Lymphphphphthon line (Cervphphphphthony) disability after receiving the medical treatment from the Ferston line located in Seo-gu, Seoan-gu, Seoan-gu, and after receiving the medical treatment from the Ferston line, on January 16, 2014. (2) On January 17, 2014, the Plaintiff sought to leave the instant hospital at the address of three weeks at the left side of the Plaintiff, and the Defendant C, on the same day, prescribed that the Plaintiff was hymppphon surgery, such as antibiotics and efficitiss, and carried out the e-mail and the e-mail test on January 18, 2014.
It is not stated that the plaintiff appealed to the first diagnosis record.
3) On January 28, 2014, Defendant C confirmed that, as a result of the early CTS reading, Defendant C’s blood test was “occination of reaction by non-infection”, and there was no unique opinion as a result of blood test other than a flap, and Defendant C tried to observe the progress when he administered climatic drugs to the extent of two weeks, without observation, to the extent that the decrease in body, the cause of the cause is unknown, and the climatics, and the climatic symptoms, etc. were not observed. 4) Defendant C performed the clipha test against the Plaintiff on February 12, 2014, and on February 20, 2014, Defendant C confirmed that the size of the clif was reduced to four meters, and that the shape of the climatic was composed of profa, and that it was no longer suspected that the climatic shape was cut back.
5 Defendant C would have to go to the Plaintiff, who would no longer be promoted by the afforestation that was promoted on March 11, 2014.