beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 13,582,694 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from April 25, 2016 to July 4, 2018.
Reasons
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. At around 8:30 on April 5, 2016, the Plaintiff, while carrying out the household production business in the wood household manufacturing business (mutually referred to as “D”) located in Gwangju-si, Gwangju-si, Gwangju-si, left knife and knife with the left left knife. After that, the Plaintiff was provided medical treatment at the E Hospital operated by the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant Hospital”) on April 23, 2016, when the Plaintiff was unable to improve the pain after the lapse of time. (2) The doctor in charge of the Defendant Hospital (F) diagnosed the Plaintiff, and provided the Plaintiff with the diagnosis of “the details of the anti-salone, the whole knife,” and explained that the surgery is necessary.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff decided to trust the diagnosis of the doctor in charge and undergo an operation, and the doctor in charge took charge of the surgery on April 25, 2016 to the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff was hospitalized in Defendant Hospital for 10 days from April 23, 2016 to May 2, 2016 due to this surgery and received diagnosis, surgery, and treatment.
3) After that, the Plaintiff filed an application for the medical care benefits for industrial accidents with the Sungnam branch of the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service, but on June 1, 2016, the president of the Sungnam branch of the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service did not approve the application on the ground that the medical record of the Plaintiff, and the medical record of the Plaintiff, the pictures of the Defendant Hospital, diagnosed by the Defendant Hospital, were not observed. The Plaintiff appealed against this, but the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service dismissed the application on the same ground as on September 2, 2016. 4) After that, the Defendant Hospital revised the diagnosis of the Plaintiff to “sleeps and tensions on the left side,” and accordingly, approved the industrial accident care measures against the Plaintiff.
5) On April 23, 2016, the G Hospital’s doctor (H) who read the data of the self-known image of the Defendant Hospital against the Plaintiff was determined that there was no opinion of satisfe incule before the surgery. 6) The result of the court’s entrustment of the examination of medical records to the head of the I Hospital.