beta
Text
1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid KRW 9,848,347 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Plaintiff’s share of KRW 9,848,347 on September 3, 2013 on June 4, 2015.
Reasons
The principal lawsuit and counterclaim shall be judged together.
1. Basic facts
A. From March 26, 2009, the Plaintiff is a patient who received surgery and hospitalized treatment at the Gaina Hospital operated by the Defendant (hereinafter “Defendant Hospital”). The Defendant is an employer of the Defendant Hospital’s medical staff who performed the Plaintiff.
B. 1) On March 24, 2009, the Plaintiff got a diagnosis of flags, cirratium, and flag escape from a medical personnel in the Defendant hospital on the following grounds: (a) on March 31, 2009, the Plaintiff was under the diagnosis of flags, flaging, flaging, and flaging surgery No. 2-3 in the aftermathical and flaging surgery No. 4 in the aftermathical and flaging surgery (hereinafter “the instant surgery”). On March 31, 2009, the Plaintiff received from the medical personnel in the Defendant Hospital the diagnosis of flagscatium and flaging surgery No. 2-3 in the aftermathical and flagical and flaging surgery (hereinafter “instant surgery”).
3) After the operation, the Plaintiff was diagnosed with bridge satise and flurine symptoms, and the Plaintiff continued to receive preservation treatment (water treatment and pain treatment) after the operation, on February 10, 2011, due to symptoms of bridge flurgy, accompanied by blurgosis flurgosis, accompanied by blurgosis blurgosis, and with blurgic blurgosis blurgosis. (C) The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff suffered b012 or 279 from the surgery negligence of the medical staff of the Defendant hospital, and the Consumer Dispute Mediation Committee filed an application for mediation with the Consumer Dispute Mediation Committee on July 22, 2013. “The Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff the amount of delayed payment of the 69,969,000 won disability to the Plaintiff by adding the symptoms of this case to the Plaintiff at the expense of 5% of the parties to the instant surgery, but did not pay the damages for delay.”
(ii) there remain remaining grounds for recognition. (iii)