beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 14,081,749 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from February 21, 2019 to August 29, 2019.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is a doctor who operates the Defendant hospital, and the Plaintiff is a person who received treatment on the ground of non-explosion at CBE and Council members operated by the Defendant (hereinafter “Defendant hospital”).
B. On December 22, 2017, the Plaintiff visited the Defendant Hospital on the ground of non-exploiting on the ground of non-exploiting on December 22, 2017, and performed an electric spacting surgery to support the part of the blood transfusion from the Defendant as electricity (hereinafter “instant surgery”).
(2) On January 3, 2018, and January 8, 2018, the Plaintiff was treated additionally by the Defendant on the part of the Plaintiff, and was given a prescription for antibiotics. (2) The part of the non-pointr was observed, and was transferred to the third hospital on January 12, 2018 without symptoms.
3) On January 13, 2018, the Plaintiff visited the emergency room of the Seoul Metropolitan Government Hospital to take a medical treatment. On January 16, 2018, the Plaintiff was diagnosed on the part of the Lee In-Man-Seoul Hospital, with a weight farming at the Escopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopics, etc. around August 2018. 4) In the course of receiving the above treatment, the Plaintiff spent medical treatment costs of KRW 896,570 at the Seoul Metropolitan Government Hospital, KRW 490,00,000,000 for medical treatment costs from Dpopic scopic scopics, and KRW 34,500 for other medical expenses
[Ground of Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including the number with each number), each of which is written, the result of the appraisal commission to the E Hospital Head of this Court, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. We examine the occurrence of liability for damages, the following circumstances acknowledged in light of the overall purport of the evidence and arguments mentioned above, namely, ① in light of the circumstance that the Plaintiff received treatment at the Seoul Metropolitan Hospital after the instant procedure, it appears that there is no room for the Plaintiff to intervene in the causes other than the instant procedure, and ② in the appraisal of medical records against the Plaintiff, there is causation between the Plaintiff’s injury and the instant procedure.