beta
Text
1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 61,479,685; and (b) KRW 2,00,000 and each of the said money to Plaintiff A from February 20, 2012 to February 20, 2018.
Reasons
1. Basic facts - The plaintiff A is a patient who has been subject to an explosion at the D Hospital working for the defendant on February 20, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the "Defendant Hospital"). The defendant works for the above hospital and has been in the process of an explosion of the plaintiff A's conlosion, and the plaintiff B is a part of the plaintiff A.
Plaintiff
A, on February 16, 2012, after receiving a diagnosis of the escape from a conical signboard at the Defendant Hospital, received an operation from the Defendant on February 20, 2012 (hereinafter “instant operation”). From February 13:30, 2012, A received a conical operation of a conical signboard from the Defendant (hereinafter “instant operation”).
However, after the surgery of this case, the plaintiff A had a Materna-gun to implement the tension.
The Ma-Ma-Ma-Ma-Ma-Ma-Ma-Ma-Ma-Ma-Ma-Ma-Ma-Ma-Ma-Ma-Ma-Ma-Ma-Ma-Ma-Ma-Ma-Ma-Ma-Ma-Ma-Ma-Ma-Ma-Ma-Ma-Ma-Ma-Ma-Ma-Ma-Ma-Ma-Ma-Ma-Ma-Ma-Ma-Ma-Ma-Ma-Ma-Ma-Ma-Ma]
After that, the plaintiff A received rehabilitation treatment and received symptoms, but around February 2014, he/she received conical marrymology in E Hospital.
Plaintiff
A is a state where symptoms, such as the left lower part of the left part of the Mamina War, the weakening of the ability to exercise the Mamina, etc. (hereinafter referred to as “instant disability”) remain.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the physical examination of the director of the Aju University Hospital Hospital in this Court and the result of the entrustment of the examination of medical records, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. A. The summary of the plaintiffs' assertion (1) The defendant is negligent by unreasonably executing a dangerous operation of an up-to-date signboard cutting-off, which could cause multiple mergers, even if there is no need to do so to the plaintiff A, even though there is no need to do so.
(B) In addition, since there may be symptoms of sacrife in the part of the surgery at the time of the instant surgery, the Defendant should have performed the surgery with due care, but the Defendant failed to fulfill its duty of care.