beta
Text
The part of the judgment of the first instance, including the claim that was reduced by the plaintiff A, against the plaintiff A, is as follows.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing this case is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing this case is the same as the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal of some contents as follows.
In the same part, the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is dismissed as the "court of first instance" of 6, 18, and 19, and the "the result of fact inquiry and inquiry" of 20, followed by adding "the result of fact inquiry and inquiry inquiry into the president of the J Hospital of this court".
The reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is as follows: (a) 9th class 16th class and 17th class “the state of Plaintiff A, who is a senior female patient and has been streaked with a streak, such as the Ath class of A,” to “the state of Plaintiff A, who is a senior female patient, with a streke
The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows: 9th 21th 10th 10th 10th 4th 10th 4th 10th 4th 10th 10th 63th 1st 1st 1st 1st 2th 1st 1st 201, "the plaintiff A appears to have been a female patient of the age of the age of the age of the age of the age of the age of the age of the age of the 63th 1st 2th 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 200 2nd 1st 201. The plaintiff A was a female patient of the age of the age of the age of the age of the age of the age of the age of the age of the age of the age of the age of the age of the age of the age of the age of the age of the age of the age of the plaintiff, and therefore, there was a duty of care to check whether the plaintiff A was a person.
The reasoning of the first instance judgment No. 13 is as follows: "The defendant was negligent in failing to discover abnormal dogs on the bones of the plaintiff A as a result of the above X-ray inspection conducted on May 19, 2016, but at the time the defendant was dissatisfy.