beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
Reasons
The reasoning for the court's explanation of this case is as follows. The court's explanation of this case is to use "in fact" of No. 12-13 of the judgment of the court of first instance, and the witness B of the court of first instance who is insufficient to recognize the plaintiff's assertion. The plaintiff's testimony is to exclude the plaintiff's new assertion or new assertion from the judgment of No. 2 of the court of first instance. Thus, it is identical to the entry of the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
In addition, the part of the judgment of the court of first instance is added between the 4th and 9th. In other words, where the victim proves that the "medical negligence" based on the common sense of the general public during a series of medical care and that there is no other cause other than a series of medical care as a result, the causal link between the medical negligence and the result may be presumed. However, the victim cannot be presumed to "medical negligence" or "the bad result due to medical negligence" solely on the ground that "the bad result due to the medical act" cannot be presumed to be "the bad result due to the medical negligence", so the victim must prove "medical negligence" first.According to the result of the request for the supplementation of physical examination of the head of the hospital of the first instance, the victim's body examination of the head of the hospital of the university of first instance as the result of the request for the supplementation of physical examination of the head of the university of first instance, the victim's age, daily life burden on the head of the hospital of the first instance court, and the burden of the adjacent agency may increase, and the plaintiff could not be additionally discharged during the period of the institution.
Therefore, the above appraisal results are medical malpractices on the part of the defendant, the causal relationship between the negligence and the result of Embama, and the duty to explain.