logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.07.12 2015가단204555
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. On December 17, 2014, the Plaintiff complained of the decline in the both banks and the draft of snow water due to B birth, and was discharged to the Gangwon-do Hospital under the Defendant’s jurisdiction (hereinafter “Defendant Hospital”).

The medical personnel of the Defendant Hospital decided to give the Plaintiff a diagnosis in the white site and to conduct the surgery in the white site of the leuk site of the leuk site of the leuk site of the leuk site of the Defendant Hospital.

B. On January 7, 2015, in order to undergo a friendly surgery at the Defendant Hospital, the Plaintiff observed a modified body pyrode and a modified body pyrheat in glass body while hospitalized and receiving modified genomic surgery at the Defendant Hospital.

The medical personnel of the Defendant Hospital removed the modified body remaining in the glass body through the implementation of the free body dypology, and implemented the artificial insemination in the cypology in the artificial insemination body (hereinafter referred to as the “instant surgery”), including the surgery and the injecting the antibiotic in the glass body below.

On January 8, 2015, the Plaintiff was discharged from the Defendant Hospital.

C. On January 13, 2015, the Plaintiff received treatment for removal of the flasium and the treatment of the flasium from the Defendant Hospital at each of the instant hospitals.

On January 16, 2015, the Plaintiff was diagnosed as dendophthmitis with inside the Defendant Hospital, and was under the process of injecting antibiotics in a glass body.

E. From January 17, 2015 to May 28, 2015, the Plaintiff was under surveillance 19 times in the outpatients of the Defendant Hospital, starting from January 17, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] The items in Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff sought compensation for property damage and mental damage equivalent to the lost profit caused by the Defendant’s negligence, since the Plaintiff’s ability to perform the instant surgery from the medical personnel of the Defendant Hospital was fully deteriorated due to the instant surgery.

B. First of all, as to whether the Plaintiff fully lost friendlyness after undergoing the instant surgery at the Defendant Hospital, the written statement of No. 1-29, No. 29, and No. 2 of this Court on whether the Plaintiff lost friendlyness after undergoing the instant surgery at the Defendant Hospital, and the result of the Defendant’s physical examination on the head of the Ginman University’s University’s Medical Hospital attached to the Ginman

arrow