beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment
A. The gist of the assertion was that the Plaintiff received correction from the Goyang-dong department D located in Ilyang-gu, Ilyang-gu, U.S., U.S.C. in 2014 operated by the Defendant. The Defendant performed a procedure in violation of the duty of care in the process and caused side effects, such as the Plaintiff’s negligence as a whole, etc., so the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages incurred therefrom
B. In a claim for damages due to a breach of a duty of care in a judgment, the victim’s act of medical negligence based on the ordinary sense of ordinary people cannot be established in the course of a series of medical practice, and the result and the result cannot be changed. In the event that the patient proves that there was no health defect that could not be the cause of the result before the medical practice, the burden of proof should be mitigated so that the causal link between the medical negligence and the result can be presumed, and the patient can be held liable for damages by presumption of the causal relationship between the medical negligence and the result. However, even in this case, the existence of medical negligence based on the common sense of ordinary people in the series of medical practice should be proved by the patient’s side, and the patient’s fault cannot be acknowledged in the course of a series of medical practice.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da20127, Nov. 27, 2003). In full view of the following facts: (a) there is no dispute between the parties or the written evidence No. 1, the Plaintiff may recognize the fact that the Plaintiff, who was admitted to the foregoing D subject, consulted the Defendant with respect to correction on July 28, 2014; and (b) received correction from the Defendant during the period from August 5, 2014 to March 30, 2015.
However, it is not sufficient to recognize that the Defendant violated the duty of care in performing the correction of atopy, thereby causing side effects to the Plaintiff, with the images of the evidence Nos. 2 and 5, and otherwise recognized.