beta
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 November 3, 2007, the Plaintiff, a patient suffering from urology in the urology hospital, was diagnosed with dynaology urology urology urology urology urology urology urology urology urology urology urology urology at various hospitals, such as the above hospital and Busan University Hospital. From August 2012, the Plaintiff was treated with urology urology urology and urology urology urology urology urology urology urology urology urology urology urology urology. However, despite the long-term treatment, the Plaintiff’s symptoms urology urology was rare.
B. On April 5, 2013, the Plaintiff undergone an operation in the lebane in the lebane (hereinafter “instant operation”) from medical personnel, including C, who is a medical doctor affiliated with the Defendant hospital (hereinafter “Defendant medical personnel”). On March 18, 2013, the Plaintiff’s eyesight in the lebane was verified as 0.1 on the maximum corrected eyesight on March 18, 2013, respectively.
C. On November 21, 2013, after the instant surgery, the Plaintiff sought to go to the DNA clinic on the grounds of the urology decline in the friendship, and the medical personnel of the said hospital recommended the Plaintiff to go to a large hospital for detailed tests and treatment that the urology in both sides is serious and detailed.
On February 13, 2015, the Plaintiff’s ability in both sides was recognized to be less than 0.02, and the Plaintiff’s disability grade 1 was determined as a visual disability.
E. The Plaintiff’s symptoms are deemed to have been caused by a sacrine sacrine in both sides due to the cirrology of both sides, and considering the Plaintiff’s cirrology or the Plaintiff’s cirrology, the Plaintiff’s symptoms were rarely likely to have occurred or aggravated due to the instant surgery, and there were no problems such as the instant surgery’s cirrology, etc., on the grounds that the Plaintiff’s symptoms were in the form of artificial insemination in both sides and the Plaintiff’s cirral condition.