beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiffs falling under the funds ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Defendant’s “Emymar surgery” in Busan Jin-gu, Busan was performed on July 11, 2007 by Plaintiff A, Plaintiff B around July 10, 2007 by inserting a universal figure or by using an emarcation surgery (hereinafter “the instant surgery”). After being performed on January 25, 2008, Plaintiff A was performed on January 25, 2008; January 17, 2009; and February 5, 2010; and Plaintiff B was performed on January 21, 2010 by each of the above hospitals (hereinafter “the instant re-operation”).
B. The instant surgery was carried out by inserting a bath in a non-distribution and transplanting a bath in a bath, etc. after inserting a bath in a non-distribution and transplanting the bath in a bath. At present, the Plaintiffs appear to have been cut off with non-distribution and non-distribution (hereinafter “sathing phenomenon”), and the bath in the left-hand side of the bast, and the Plaintiff B was exposed to non-distribution.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1, Gap 3 and 4 in each of 1 to 3, Gap 5 evidence, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. (1) The defendant's claim for damages is that due to negligence as described in paragraphs (a) through (b) above, it requires re-operation as a result of a malicious consequence, such as non-distribution and non-distribution of the plaintiffs, the interruption phenomenon of the non-distribution and non-distribution attachment, cocogn's display, and the exposure to non-Attachmented Bedbb, and thus, the defendant is obliged to pay the plaintiffs a total of KRW 10,000,000, including expenses for re-operation and consolation money, as damages
(A) Medical malpractice ① In the event that the length of a tangible object inserted in a non-distribution is short or excessive compared to a combined non-distribution, the attachment of a tangible object and a non-refluent attachment can be seen to be severed. Therefore, the defendant should have fulfilled his/her duty of care, such as checking and correcting the surgery several times, so that such phenomenon does not occur.