beta
Text
1. The Defendants jointly share the amount of KRW 5,000,000 to Plaintiff A, as well as the period from November 21, 2014 to May 18, 2018.
Reasons
Recognizing the facts, on March 24, 2014, the Plaintiff A was diagnosed with Yuamamamamamam, and received emulsion from the general outside of the hospital operated by Defendant School Foundation F (hereinafter “Defendant Corporation”) on the right side, and received from Defendant G, a person in charge of sexual surgery, the Defendant G, who was in charge of the sexual surgery, “the emulsion and emulsion using the both sides emulsion plate” (hereinafter “the emulsion operation”).
After that, the following was caused by the first operation of the instant case, such as an expansion of a flag, to Plaintiff A. Accordingly, Defendant G performed the Plaintiff’s “the second operation of the instant case” on November 21, 2014.
Plaintiff
After undergoing the second surgery, A complained of symptoms to Defendant G, on January 8, 2015, 2015, i.e., “the pressure under Dok Dok Dok”, and on March 10, 2015.”
After that, Plaintiff A was diagnosed by the head of the ductal wall escape, etc. after being admitted to the Cultural Heritage Hospital at the Life University. On December 23, 2015, Plaintiff A received “the correction of the ductal wall escape” from the above hospital.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2 through 6 (including partial number of heading; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the plaintiff's first hand alcohol of this case asserted as to whether the plaintiff violated the duty of care in the medical practice of the entire pleadings, and the plaintiff Gap had past record of the operation of her part, and therefore the defendant G should have implemented her part of other methods, such as freeboard, even though the defendant G should have implemented her part of her part of her part of her part of her part of her part of her part of her part of her part of her part of her part of her part of her part of her part of her part of her part of her part of her part.
With respect to the second water alcohol in this case, Defendant G selected an inappropriate size and the thickness while performing an operation to strengthen the double wall by using the non-absorbing mersh. Accordingly, the Plaintiff A’s escape of the double wall even after undergoing the second operation.