1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. The defendant is a psychiatrist who is in office as a professor of the mental health department of B hospital.

B. On May 22, 2014, C was involved in a traffic accident involving Oral Ba, and on June 18, 2015, C issued a written diagnosis of the remaining disability to the effect that C suffered from a mental disorder of external disorder equivalent to the permanent disability of 22% of the Mabrid disability assessment table 8-B-1 due to the foregoing traffic accident.

C. On April 6, 2014, D was a traffic driver on the part of the Mabrid Disability Assessment Table, and on August 18, 2015, D issued a written diagnosis of the remaining disability due to the above traffic accident, that D suffered a mental disorder with a mental disorder equivalent to 32% permanent disability of Mabrid Disability Assessment Table 8-B-2.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Upon the Plaintiff’s request from Brazil E to issue a diagnosis of the post-evaluation disability compared to the actual disability, the Plaintiff intentionally issued a false diagnosis of the post-evaluation disability with respect to C and D (main assertion). 2) Home affairs Defendant did not contact with E in Brer E.

Even if the defendant did not diagnose the patient with the care required of the doctor, the defendant issued a false diagnosis of the disability of the aftermath by negligence.

(Preliminary Claim) 3) Since the issuance of a certificate of diagnosis of the above defendant's false residual disability obstructs the plaintiff's work, the defendant is liable to pay 1 million won as consolation money for mental damage to the plaintiff.B. 1) There is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant intentionally issued a certificate of diagnosis of the temporary disability in collusion with Brazil E and intentionally caused it to be issued.

2. With respect to whether the Defendant issued a false diagnosis of a post-treatment disability by negligence necessary for the issuance of a written diagnosis of a post-treatment disability in violation of the duty of care, the health class, the entry of the evidence of No. 1 to No. 5, and the head of the Korea University Cancer Hospital in this Court.