beta
Text
1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and the Defendant jointly share KRW 10,000,000 with respect to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the same, on December 3, 2014.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The first operation for the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant, and the Plaintiff from the next day to the next day, hereinafter “Plaintiff”) C (hereinafter “Defendant Medical Foundation”) is a medical foundation that operates the F Hospital located in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “F Hospital”), and Defendant D is a doctor who works in the F Hospital.
Plaintiff
A is a person who received the following 1 and 2 surgery and treatment from Defendant D at the F Hospital, and Plaintiff B is a parent of Plaintiff A.
(2) On August 9, 2013, Plaintiff A received 5,000 U.S. 5,00 from G Hospital on the luxa and left side bridge to remove the luxa escape test.
Plaintiff
A was treated by Defendant D on December 2, 2014, when the certificate of her He/she was issued due to a recurrence of her He/shedian pain and the left side herbridge, and he/she was transferred to the F Hospital.
Defendant D diagnosed the Plaintiff’s symptoms to be caused by the recurrence of the escape certificate between 5 and 6 on the left-hand side after CT and MRI shooting, and the pressure of the negoical pressure.
(3) Defendant D confirmed the location of the part of the surgery using C-Em (on-time X-Em-ray equipment used in an operation room) visual images from around 11:00 on December 3, 2014, and “the first operation from the date following the tethical tethic tethic tethic tethic tethic tethic tethic tethic tethic tethic tethic tethic tethic tethic tethic
B. (1) After the first operation, the medical personnel of F Hospital took RoI on December 4, 2014, which was the following day after the first operation, and did not find any particular problem. (2) After the operation, the Plaintiff A had overall symptoms before the operation, but there was a pain on both parts of the operation, and even after that continued to appeal the symptoms of the MaI, which led to the symptoms. (3) From around 21:00 on December 25, 2014, Plaintiff A consistently complained for the symptoms of the MaI. From the right edge to the right edge of the operation, Plaintiff A consistently complained for the symptoms of the MaI.