logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.06.27 2015가단5380942
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff’s treatment course at Defendant Hospital 1) The Plaintiff’s hospital operated by the Defendant on February 26, 2014 (hereinafter “Defendant Hospital”) due to the Plaintiff’s symptoms with the right snow pain and the view of view.

(2) On February 26, 2014, the medical personnel of the Defendant Hospital diagnosed the Plaintiff as the right visual infection and provided the Plaintiff with an employment volume test from February 26, 2014 to April 3, 2014.

3) Even after the Switzerland treatment, the Defendant hospital remaining in the stropha, and thereafter, from March 15, 2014 to March 27, 2014, the Plaintiff performed blood exchange surgery five times. (B) As a result of the Defendant hospital’s reading, the Defendant hospital corrected the Plaintiff’s MRI reading results on May 26, 2014; (a) the scopia revised as of May 26, 2014 was turned out to be less than the stropha of the stropha surrounding the right stropha; and (b) the stropha, c) the schopatha, hychopatha, and the c) the Plaintiff visited the Plaintiff to undergo a diagnosis of the 15th schopatha, stating that the Plaintiff visited the Plaintiff to undergo a diagnosis of the 19th schopatha, c).

2) On February 12, 2015, the Plaintiff received a final diagnosis of the Ansan MaI from the Hospital on February 23, 2015, and around February 23, 2015. D. At present, the Plaintiff was under operation from the hospital to remove the seeds of the relevant plant within the two mouths, and the Plaintiff was under radioactive treatment for the inner and inner organs surrounding the megathic. The Plaintiff lost the eyesight of the right eye. [Grounds for recognition] The Plaintiff lost the eyesight of the right eye after the surgery. The Plaintiff did not dispute (based on recognition), Gap evidence 1 (including the virtual number, Eul evidence 2, each fact-finding inquiry with respect to the D Hospital, the result of the entire arguments, and the purport of the entire arguments.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was conducted at the Defendant Hospital on February 26, 2014 by the Plaintiff.

arrow