beta
Text
1. From August 10, 2007, the Plaintiff’s treatment act against the Defendant at Cental clinic.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff is a doctor who operated Cental clinic (hereinafter “Plaintiff hospital”) on the Namyang-si, Namyang-si, D and fourth floor.
B. On August 10, 2007, the Defendant was transferred to the Plaintiff Hospital on the ground of the pains of the second upper chins (Tagu, No. 17; hereinafter the number is a hins number; hereinafter the hins number is indicated mainly with the hins number; hereinafter the hins number is indicated) to the right-hand right-hand side of the Plaintiff Hospital from that time to January 30, 2008, and received the Plaintiff’s treatment of the hins and hins of the hins (36) and the first hins (36) and second hins (37) under the left-hand left-hand side of the hins, the first hins and second hins (26), and the second hins (27) and the treatment of the hins of the hins of the hins and the treatment of the hins of the hins.
(C) On May 9, 201, the Defendant: (a) applied to the Plaintiff hospital for inconvenience in dental treatment, etc.; (b) taken a radioactive photograph to verify the condition of the re-correction of the re-explosive; (c) again, on August 17, 2011, the Defendant applied to the Plaintiff hospital for re-making of the re-making of the re-making of the re-production of the re-production of the re-production of the re-production of the re-production of the re-production of the re-production of the re-production of the re-production of the re-production of the re-production of the re-production of the re-production of the re-production of the re-production of the re-production of the re-production of the re-production of the re-production of the re-production of the re-production of the re-production of the re-production of the re-production of the re-production of the 17th, 26, and 27).
2. The parties' assertion
A. The plaintiff did not have any negligence in treating the defendant, and the defendant claims compensation for damages by asserting that there was any symptoms abnormal to the telegraph, such as influority, fluority, fluority, etc., after receiving a fluort treatment from the plaintiff, etc., and thus, the defendant claims compensation for damages.
(b).