logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2020.02.20 2016가단145519
손해배상(의)
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 59,051,683 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from January 20, 2015 to February 20, 2020.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The status of the parties is that the Plaintiff, as a Cproductive woman, received the light eanesthesia surgery (the treatment method for inserting drugs by inserting an an anger on the side of the climatic climatic climatic climatic climatic climatic climatic climatic climatic climatic climatic climatic cliffic cliffic cliffic clific clific clific clific clific clific

B. Around June 28, 2011, the Plaintiff, including the implementation of the negotition surgery against the Plaintiff, was treated by treating the Defendant as well as physical therapy, drug treatment, and negotition surgery on May 11, 201, which were applied to the Defendant’s Council member on 16 occasions from June 28, 201 to June 28, 201.

On April 19, 2012, the Plaintiff was admitted to the Defendant’s Council member with kne-free pain, and the Defendant performed physical therapy, pharmacologic treatment, and neute blocking.

Since then, the defendant appealed to the defendant's Council members at intervals of 1,2 weeks to 1,2 months, such as knee, knee, knee, shoulder, elbow, elbow, kele, hand, and so on, according to the degree of pain, and the defendant took the pain treatment in line with the pain of the plaintiff's appeal.

On December 30, 2014, the Plaintiff, who was admitted to the Defendant’s Council member, appealed for the instant sub-competence, and the Defendant implemented the negotition.

On January 2, 2015 and January 15, 2015, the Plaintiff: (a) applied to the Defendant Council member; and (b) the Defendant re-runed the negotition.

On January 20, 2015, the Plaintiff: (a) 10:00, and (b) 10:00, the Plaintiff applied to Defendant’s Council member with a flag pain; and (c) the Defendant began to implement the instant surgery (hereinafter “instant surgery”).

In the process of the instant treatment, the Plaintiff did not appeal for pains or abnormal pains when inserting the 5th scopical scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic

arrow