logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원포항지원 2015.06.25 2014가단2073
손해배상(의)
Text

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On July 21, 201, the Plaintiff was diagnosed with the escape certificate of a conical signboard No. 5-astronomical calendar No. 1 and the chronic root No. 1, and received the escape from D Hospital on July 21, 201.

After the operation, symptoms have improved, and pain treatment has been received, and from November of the same year, the whole flag and low flag have not been made right-hand from the same year, and the same hospital was sexually treated on December 16 of the same year.

B. On May 16, 2012, the Plaintiff got out of the hospital of the Republic of Korea (hereinafter “Defendant hospital”) of the Siamam Medical Center of the Defendant Medical Corporation (hereinafter “Defendant Hospital”). Defendant B, a doctor of the Defendant hospital, received spinal ties and vertebrate domination (hereinafter “instant surgery”) from Defendant B on the 24th day of the same month, and received a re-operation to adjust the location of vertebrate (hereinafter “instant re-operation”) on the 31st day of the same month, on the ground that there was a radioactive device that did not keep on the right side after the surgery.

C. The Plaintiff currently has a physical disability (hereinafter “instant disability”) to the extent corresponding to V-D-2-b (in the event that verteball febane was performed with respect to the crypary crypary crypary crypary crypary crypary crypary crypary crypary crypary crypary crypary crypary crypary crypary crypary

[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 6, the result of the physical appraisal commission (including the supplementary commission and the response for fact-finding) to the director of the Yong-Namnam University Hospital, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion that Defendant B had a duty of care to carefully cope with the instant surgery, such as selecting surgery methods, if it is difficult to completely recover from the treatment by examining the causes of pains through various tests before the instant surgery, and then determining whether it is possible to completely recover from the treatment due to an inception method that does not cause serious harm to the human body, such as medication.

arrow