beta
Text
1. The Defendant: 14,220,120 won to Plaintiff B and 5% per annum from December 21, 2015 to August 10, 2018; and
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On December 21, 2015, Plaintiff B, who was inside D (hereinafter “Defendant Hospital”) operated by the Defendant, had the ero, snow, snow, liver, eroscopic surgery between the eroscopic and eroscopic surgery, eroscopic eroscopic surgery (hereinafter “instant surgery”), and had the eroscopic eroscopic eroscopic surgery at the same time, and had the eroscopic eroscopic surgery.
B. On December 28, 2015, Plaintiff B received treatment to alleviate holes at Defendant Hospital (humlle) on the part of the instant treatment.
C. On January 6, 2016, Plaintiff B, who was admitted to the Defendant Hospital, decided to convert the leaps into the leapsing router procedure according to the Defendant’s explanation, and received leapsing routers procedure.
Plaintiff
B has been treated with the symptoms of paralysis and saccination of the right side after the procedure of this case, and even until now, the symptoms of saccination are shown to be left and left due to the decline in the movement of the inner part at the time of the injury.
E. From February 15, 2016, Plaintiff A, who is his/her father and wife, conducted demonstration by citing the clicket to the effect that the side effect of the instant treatment in the vicinity of the Defendant Hospital is a medical accident.
【Ground of recognition】 In the absence of dispute, the Defendant is dissatisfied with each of the aforementioned requests for appraisal by asserting that the result of the Defendant’s physical examination of Gap’s evidence Nos. 2 through 6, 12, 14 through 19, 26, Eul’s evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 8, and 12, and Eul’s evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 8, and 12, and the result of the Defendant’s physical examination of the head of the Seoul Hospital Hospital of the Republic of Korea was erroneous. However, the appraiser’s appraisal result should be respected unless the appraisal method is contrary to the empirical rule or unreasonable (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da92866, Dec. 11, 2014); and the Defendant’s submission.