beta
Text
1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 35,760,508 and KRW 11,414,916 among them, from November 26, 2008, KRW 5,898,660.
Reasons
1. The following facts may be acknowledged by integrating each entry in Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including branch numbers for those with serial numbers) as a whole, and there is no counter-proof.
The plaintiff is a non-profit public interest corporation established pursuant to the National Health Insurance Act and managed and operated health insurance for the prevention, diagnosis, medical treatment, and rehabilitation of diseases and injury, for childbirth death and for the improvement of health, and A is the insured of the plaintiff Corporation.
B. On February 26, 2008, the above A was first admitted to the U.S. Hospital operated by the Defendant (hereinafter “Defendant Hospital”) on the grounds of pain and unpaid pain, bad condition, low symptoms, pedestrian disability, etc., and was diagnosed by the medical personnel of the Defendant hospital as a result of the Defendant’s medical personnel inspection, etc. around March 2008, after being accompanied by Maalia (MRI) and Mati (CT) test at the Defendant Hospital, etc., and was conducted a diagnosis, such as the pleinal tyrosis, etc.
C. The above A was hospitalized in the Defendant Hospital on March 17, 2008, and was from around 08:15 on March 19, 2008 to around 17:30 on March 19, 2008, the above A was "the first operation to be performed with a chest 6-7 with a chest dyebrate convergence surgery and a pellet transplantation surgery."
The medical personnel of the defendant hospital suffered damage to the light in the process of stuffing the part of the saf and the part of the saf and the safel during the first operation, and the amount of brain was leaked from that part, and the medical personnel of the defendant hospital restored damaged parts to artificial safs and gels, etc.
However, although the above A was in the last 3-4 level before the first operation and was only in the urine urine disorder, the urine urology disorder was deepened not only in the first operation but also in the first operation, but also in the second operation, the urine urology disorder was deepened, and as a result, IMalia conducted against the plaintiff after the first operation was observed as a result of the examination.
After the first operation, the defendant was found to have symptoms, such as severe pain and paralysis, etc.