logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2015.05.21 2013가단217938
손해배상(의)
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 May 23, 2012, the Plaintiff was admitted to Daejeon Women’s Hospital operated by the Defendant with knee-hnee-hne.

The doctor B diagnosed the status of the plaintiff as the side slicker and the half-month slicker on the right side of the plaintiff.

B. On May 28, 2012, the Plaintiff was hospitalized in Daejeon Empic Hospital for surgery. On the following day, the Plaintiff was hospitalized in the said Hospital, and was conducted by doctors B on the part of half-months and the external side part of the said hospital.

C. On August 29, 2012, the Plaintiff was in the state of damage to the balves of the brupty test conducted with the Plaintiff on August 29, 2012.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 18, 19, 20, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant should compensate for damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the nonperformance of obligations under the medical contract. The plaintiff asserts that 26,120,854 won (daily profit 6,120,854 won, consolation money 20,000 won) and damages for delay.

A doctor B has damaged the plaintiff's non-competence by overcoming or pressureing the plaintiff's non-competence during the surgery.

A doctor B infringed the Plaintiff’s right to self-determination by failing to accurately explain the necessity of surgery, risk, possibility of choice of other treatment methods, etc.

3. Determination

A. According to the following: (a) the video of No. 12; (b) the record of No. 17; (c) the examination of the medical record on the Korean Medical Association; and (d) the result of physical examination on the director of the Korean Medical Hospital; and (c) according to the overall purport of the oral argument, a doctor B performed an operation with the confirmation of the Plaintiff’s non-competence at the time of the instant surgery; (d) the damage of the non-competence was a temporary merger witness that may be caused by the damage of the thirrosis in the course of the surgery or the pressure of the surgery department after the surgery; (e) the temporary merger witness that may be caused by the pressure of the surgery department after the surgery; and (e) the pellogic personality examination conducted on December 17, 2014 at the Nando Hospital.

arrow