beta
Text
1. Defendant D’s KRW 1,500,000 for Plaintiff A and 5% per annum from December 1, 2015 to October 10, 2017.
Reasons
Basic Facts
Plaintiff
A and Plaintiff B are married, and Plaintiff C are children between the above Plaintiffs.
Defendant D is a doctor who performed the Aboard Removal surgery for Plaintiff A at G Hospital (hereinafter “instant hospital”), and Defendant E and F are a doctor who provided medical treatment to Plaintiff A at the instant hospital after the said surgery.
Plaintiff
A around 192, around 192, at the instant hospital, received a sprinkling on the right upper line due to the right upper line.
Plaintiff
A was diagnosed by the left-hand merchant cancer around March 9, 2008 from around March 2008, when he/she received treatment from the instant hospital due to the species of A’s training and dysium, and was subject to the hysium therapy on the left-hand side from Defendant D on March 10, 208 (hereinafter “instant surgery”).
Plaintiff
After the instant surgery, A showed calcium calcium sium sium siumacium, such as low knife due to the decline in the function of the calcium. From December 19, 201 to December 19, 201, Defendant F began the treatment of Plaintiff A by prescribing the drugs called “Posium sium sium sium” (hereinafter “instant drug”).
Since February 28, 2015, Defendant E continued to provide the Plaintiff with the instant medicine prescribed and used the instant medicine at the instant hospital as before and around June 19, 2015, and suspended the prescription and treatment using the instant medicine.
Plaintiff
A Since November 2015, the U.S. University Hospital, etc. has been receiving medical treatment for calcium calcium symptoms caused by the calcium function sium symptoms after the surgery in this case.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 6, 7, 15, 16, 20, Eul evidence Nos. 2-1, Eul evidence Nos. 5 and 6, the assertion of the purport of the whole pleadings, and the plaintiffs' assertion of judgment against the plaintiff Eul in conducting the operation of this case against the plaintiff Eul, the defendant D had a duty to prevent the plaintiff's autopsy's autopsy line's loss of function after the operation.