beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal and the supplementary selective claims in the trial are all dismissed.
2. After an appeal is filed.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On January 31, 2008, the Plaintiff received a sex surgery at the Csung surgery operated by the Defendant (hereinafter “Defendant hospital”) in order to increase the nose by inserting the type of solid container on the part of the Defendant, etc. on the part of the victim, etc., and by inserting the sureerm and the spores on the part of the spores, the spores, and the spores.
(hereinafter referred to as “first operation”). (b)
On April 30, 2009, the Plaintiff established the Defendant Hospital on the ground that the height of the Cormath was lowered, and on May 8, 2009, the Defendant performed an operation to enhance the Corma by adding the two sub-sections of the Plaintiff’s Cormath to the Corma.
(hereinafter “Secondary surgery”). On August 14, 2009, the Plaintiff asked the Defendant Hospital to call and call to the lower end height, and the Defendant, on February 12, 2010, performed a surgery to transplant the body part of the Plaintiff’s colon and inserting it.
(hereinafter referred to as “third operation”). (c)
On December 7, 2012, the Plaintiff resisted that the Defendant was found, after the third operation, the height of the end of the city at another time after the third operation, and, on March 19, 2013, the Plaintiff is called "E sex surgery (hereinafter referred to as "E sex surgery") with the E-type surgery located in Gwangju-gu, Seo-gu, Gwangju.
(B) In the first instance court’s inquiry reply to the president of the E-U.S. court’s E-U.S. court’s E-U.S. court’s E-U.S. court’s E-U.S. court’s E-U. court’s E-U.S. court’s response to the fact that there was no dispute over the grounds for recognition, the statement and image of evidence No. 1-1, No. 2, and No.
2. The parties' assertion
A. The plaintiff's argument is due to the following negligence on the part of the defendant in relation to the first or third surgery performed by the defendant. The defendant is obligated to pay 3,2170,000 won to the plaintiff for damages caused by tort or nonperformance of obligation (=3,170,000 won for treatment expenses of the first operation: KRW 7,170,000 for the third operation expenses of KRW 3,000,000 for the second operation expenses of KRW 1,80,000 for the third operation expenses of KRW 5,00,000 for the third operation expenses and KRW 5,570,000 for the future treatment expenses) and damages for delay.
1. The defendant three times.