beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On October 11, 2011, the Plaintiff complained of the Hui Norri Norri, left side raying, booming a brush, brush, Geging symptoms, etc., which occurred beyond October 9, 201, to the hospital operated by the Defendant (hereinafter “Defendant hospital”).
At the time, the Defendant diagnosed the Plaintiff’s status as “at the time, at 4,5 times in both sides of the Tropical MRI, and, at the same time, at the same time, it appears that the compromise between the left side of the drilling and the narrow course of a minor scale of water, are likely to cause pains,” and the Plaintiff discharged on October 12, 201, which is the following day after being hospitalized on the day when the Plaintiff was treated.
B. On February 6, 2013, the Plaintiff was admitted to the Defendant Hospital by alleging of the cryp, left side shield, radioactive raying symptoms, etc., which occurred in the course of going beyond the scope of February 4, 2013. On February 6, 2013, the Plaintiff was subject to the necessary MRI’s test (No. 5-2, 1, 2013, and the opinion of escape on the left side of the central nature). On February 7, 2013, the Plaintiff discharged the DNA injection.
C. On February 28, 2013, the Plaintiff: (a) hospitalized in the Defendant Hospital with her butt her butt, etc. complaining of the pain; and (b) inserted the heat-driven boat into the disc in high-frequency heat treatment disc on the day of hospitalization; and (c) treated the heat treatment using high-frequency heat as a treatment method to remove pain by destroying only the negos in the disc, which transmit the meat by heat, by inserting the heat into the disc.
was received.
However, even after the Plaintiff continued to appeal for a serious pain from the left-hand lux to the luxing volume, the Defendant again conducted the RoI test on March 2, 2013, and on March 2, 2013 (the opinion on the escape of conical signboards No. 5-3, No. 1, the central level of left-hand side), and on March 2, 2013, the Plaintiff conducted the luxal malopical surgery against each Plaintiff on March 6, 2013, and March 9, 2013. In addition, on March 12, 2013, the Defendant again conducted the luxal malopic surgery outside the luxic luxic luxic luxic luxic lux.