logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2019.08.13 2018나30335
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal and the defendant's incidental appeal are all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal and the incidental costs thereof shall be individually considered.

Reasons

1. The following facts may be acknowledged as either a dispute between the parties or a whole of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 2 and Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 13.

The defendant is a doctor who operates dental clinics with the trade name of "Cental Department".

B. On August 3, 2015, the Plaintiff received treatment of the doctor D, who is an employee of the Defendant or the Defendant (in cases where the Plaintiff was negligent in treating D, the liability arising therefrom is bound to belong to the Defendant, and for convenience, the Plaintiff received treatment of the baby No. 6 from the Defendant and D (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant Council member”) until March 27, 2017, including the Plaintiff received treatment of the baby No. 5, No. 6, and No. 6, from the Defendant and D.

C. On March 27, 2017, the Defendant rendered dental treatment to the Plaintiff’s Maternal and Maternalia No. 5 No. 7 (hereinafter “Maternalia No. 7”) (hereinafter “Maternalia”).

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff asserted that on March 27, 2017, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to provide dental treatment No. 6 to the Defendant, and at the time, the Plaintiff did not need dental treatment No. 7 of the instant case.

Nevertheless, the Defendant launched No. 7 of the instant Dohaak, and the Defendant erred by misunderstanding 7 of the instant Dohaak as Dohaak, or by neglecting the duty of care necessary for diagnosis and treatment, thereby neglecting the duty of care, thereby creating the instant Dohaak No. 7 of the instant Dohaak.

In addition, the Plaintiff knew that the Plaintiff started the Plaintiff No. 6 of Madak, and consented thereto, and the Defendant violated the duty of explanation by neglecting the Plaintiff’s explanation on the need for dental treatment of Madakia No. 7 of Madak, etc.

As a result, the plaintiff has to conduct a crym operation on the frym of the instant frym, 7th to the frym of the instant frym, and has suffered physical and mental pain, and the defendant is under the said medical contract to the plaintiff.

arrow