beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 24,044,706 with respect to the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from April 9, 2016 to December 18, 2019, and the following.
Reasons
1. The following facts can be acknowledged in light of the following facts: Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 2-1, 3, 4, 6, 7; Eul evidence No. 16; and Eul evidence No. 4:
Around April 9, 2016, the Defendant: (a) at D’s house located in Gumi-si C; (b) took care of the skin of the Plaintiff’s et al.; and (c) took care of the skin of the Plaintiff’s et al.; (d) removed the ear of face by hand; and (e) took care of the son’s eye of the Plaintiff’s eye with symptoms in back and influencing them; and (e) took care of the son’s eye on the ear of the defect that the Plaintiff’s eye with symptoms in back to the back of the back of the back of the defect; and (e) in the process, the Plaintiff suffered from the injury of the flucul in which the treatment period requires.
(hereinafter “instant injury”). (b)
On April 12, 2016 and around 13, 2016, the Plaintiff received treatment from “F Council member” located in Gumi-si E. From April 15, 2016 to August 18, 2016, and received medical treatment from “H Council member” located in Gumi-si. From around April 15, 2016 to “H Council member”, the Plaintiff was hospitalized in the I Hospital upon receiving the diagnosis of each hume, and was hospitalized until May 20, 2016.
C. Meanwhile, the Defendant was indicted for a violation of the Medical Service Act (No. 2017Kadan975) at the Daegu District Court Kimcheon Branch and a crime of bodily injury caused by occupational negligence. On August 23, 2018, the above court was sentenced to imprisonment for eight months, and the Defendant appealed to the Daegu District Court No. 2018No3418 on October 18, 2019, and was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years in the above court’s imprisonment for eight months.
Accordingly, the defendant's appeal is pending in the court of final appeal.
2. The Defendant is not liable for damages in light of the Plaintiff’s statement that he did not have a blood transfusion on the Plaintiff’s eye, and that the injury in this case was caused by the instant procedure. In light of the Plaintiff’s statement that he was presumed to have been presumed to have been aware of a foreign substance in the eye, the instant case is not deemed to have been committed.