logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 울산지방법원 2016.06.01 2014나10205
손해배상(의)
Text

1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

The defendant.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 30, 2013, the Plaintiff received from the Defendant a procedure to injecting a part of the brote composition on the part of cocon (hereinafter “the first procedure”). On April 1, 2013, the Plaintiff was injecting part of the brote injecting the brote composition from the Defendant to melt the crocon.

B. On April 3, 2013, the Plaintiff received a coliter treatment from the Defendant (a procedure to additionally inject the racker in order to cause the shortage of part after the racker treatment or to raise the kacker’s coin treatment) and a racker treatment (a procedure to inject the racker for the purpose of removing the racker’s oil flowing into both sides of the nose).

hereinafter referred to as 'the instant procedure'

(c) Since April 5, 2013, the Plaintiff complained of the Plaintiff’s c.m. c., the Defendant again injected to the Plaintiff, and the Defendant administered enz. enz. yeast and antibiotics that injecte the d.m. to the Plaintiff, the Defendant administered enz. ymnasium and antibiotics that injecte the d.m. to the d.m. to the right part of the dc., and the d.m. to the Plaintiff from April 7, 2013 to April 16, 2013. (c) After the instant procedure, the Defendant provided the Plaintiff with c.m. and the d.m. s. to the right part of the dc. s.m. to the Plaintiff. After the instant procedure, the d.m. s. s.m. s. to the right part of the d.m. s. to the lower part of the d. d. d.m.

(2) Each entry, the physical assessment (e.g., imposition, sexual outage and commission, the purport of the entire pleadings) of the Director of the Department of the Party’s Year’s School of the Party’s Year’s School of the Court.

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Whether the Defendant violated the duty of care in the instant procedure (1) in a case where a medical doctor claims damages on the ground that the medical act constitutes a tort due to a breach of duty of care in the process, the same as the general tort.

arrow