(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2019.08.23 2017가단252790

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2019.08.23 2017가단252790

손해배상(의)

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The Defendant is the manager of the Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D Hospital (hereinafter “Defendant Hospital”) and the employer of the medical staff of the Defendant Hospital.

On August 9, 2017, the Plaintiff: (a) observed the disease, etc., such as RoI MaI Ma-5, protruding a con signboard escape symptoms, which was taken on the same day; (b) the medical personnel at Defendant Hospital: (c) 4-5 on the following day: (a) high-frequency heat treatment surgery in the conical signboard; (d) climatic surgery; and (e) high-frequency heat treatment surgery in the climatic climatic surgery (hereinafter “the instant surgery”); (c) climatic surgery in the climatic signboard; (d) climatic surgery in the climatic climatic system; and (e) climatic surgery in the climatic system; and (e) climatic surgery in the climatic system; and (e) climatic surgery in the climatic system; and (e) climatic surgery and climatic surgery for the purpose of effectively reducing the climatic and climatic surgery.

The Plaintiff discharged the instant surgery on the date of the instant surgery, and thereafter, the pain was mitigated, but the left-hand side, and the pain and symptoms of Mari-ri, which have deteriorated, re-hospitalized the Defendant Hospital on August 14, 2017.

The medical personnel of the Defendant Hospital decided that there is no special factor after the blood examination with the RI, and that the medical personnel started to provide the Plaintiff with the medical treatment from August 18, 2018.

Upon the aggravation of pain, the Plaintiff was discharged from the Defendant Hospital on August 23, 2017 and hospitalized in the E Hospital. The Plaintiff was diagnosed as “the symptoms of the escape of conical signboards and spine inverteitis 4-5” and received preservation treatment for pain control and dyeculic therapy.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff 1 performed the operation of this case.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.12.20 2016가합506552

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.08.31 2014가합569528

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.12.23 2013가합522447

-서울중앙지방법원 2014.12.09 2014가합529131

-서울남부지방법원 2016.06.16 2014가합102044