logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2013.11.07 2011가단79511
손해배상(의)
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. Defendant C (hereinafter “Defendant C”) operates a hospital, and Defendant B is a doctor outside of the hospital’s square.

B. On March 6, 2009, the Plaintiff was diagnosed with the right side of the D Hospital on the extreme part, and on April 30, 2009, received a feling operation from Defendant B (hereinafter “instant operation”).

C. Thereafter, on December 19, 2009, the Plaintiff was performing an operation, such as rewing repact of the rewing of the rewing fix of the rewing fluence at the New Village Hospital.

On the other hand, the Plaintiff left the right shouldering part of the lecture line (hereinafter “instant disability”).

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy

2. Determination

A. Defendant B’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion caused the instant disability to the Plaintiff due to the medical negligence as set forth below. As such, Defendant B and the Defendant Foundation, the employer thereof, are liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages incurred to the Plaintiff due to the instant disability.

(1) Defendant B did not appeal to the extent that the Plaintiff had to undergo an operation, and there was no problem in the movement of right shoulder, and thus, Defendant B performed the instant operation in an unnecessary manner despite the need to undergo an operation.

(2) The instant disability occurred after the Plaintiff undergone the instant surgery, and is consistent with the part of the surgery. Before the instant surgery, there was no restriction on the Plaintiff’s right shoulder movement, and it was not a physical condition with internal factors that the Plaintiff could have easily caused the instant disability since before and after the surgery, and there was medical malpractice in the instant surgery to Defendant B in light of the fact that pains have disappeared after the surgery.

(3) Defendant B, even though the Plaintiff continuously complained of the instant pain after the instant surgery, did not verify the Plaintiff’s condition through the precision examination.

arrow