beta
Text
The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 3,00,000 per annum from March 29, 2017 to July 21, 2020, and from the following day.
Reasons
1. On March 24, 2017, the Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion was transferred to the hospital run by the Defendant on the grounds of shouldering, etc., and was subject to the RI inspection, etc. from the medical personnel of the hospital, and on March 29, 2017, on the part of the Defendant, “high-frequency neutronological and negotiology surgery” was implemented by the Defendant.
However, the plaintiff could not have explained about the side effects of the above procedure from the defendant, and after the procedure, there were two copies, tidelands, tidelands, and knife of arms and fingers that did not have any symptoms, and it is difficult to lead a daily life due to the continuous extreme pain.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff is seeking damages against the Defendant for medical expenses of KRW 30 million and consolation money of KRW 20 million and KRW 50 million in total (=a medical expenses of KRW 30 million and KRW 20 million) and damages for delay.
2. Determination
A. According to the respective statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and Eul evidence Nos. 1, and Eul evidence No. 1, the Plaintiff’s 2017 enforcement of the Defendant’s “high-frequency nuclear malute and anti-viral malutism” on March 29, 2017, with a large number of protruding out of cirical signboards increase, and it is recognized that the girical mal coarism was serious.
D. However, in light of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the respective statements and arguments stated in the Evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 5 and the purport of the entire pleadings, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone was negligent at the time when the Defendant implemented the Plaintiff’s “high-frequency crypary and crymal hemal hemal hemop
It is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff’s assertion was caused by the increase in protruding out of the square sloping signboard which is confirmed to the Plaintiff at present, the deepening of neutism, and the Plaintiff’s assertion due to the above “high frequency nephical marological and external anti-grasive marological marism,” and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.
Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without need to be examined further.