logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2020.09.17 2020가합23220
손해배상(의)
Text

The plaintiffs' claims against the defendants are dismissed in entirety.

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendants are medical doctors operating the F Hospital (hereinafter “Defendant Hospital”); Plaintiff A is a patient who was surgeryed on the father No. 8-11 at the Defendant Hospital, and Plaintiff B is the husband of Plaintiff A, and Plaintiff C is the children of Plaintiff A.

B. On May 2012, Plaintiff A was diagnosed by G Hospital as scarcity scarcity scarlete and scarlete scarlete scarlete.

On June 1, 2012, Defendant D, who had worked in G Hospital at the time, performed a scarcity 1-3 surgery against Plaintiff A on June 1, 2012, and planned the second operation.

C. Since then, Defendant D moved his workplace to Defendant Hospital, and Plaintiff A was subject to pharmacologic treatment, etc. on March 25, 2013, after receiving the pharmacologic treatment, etc. at Defendant Hospital, on April 15, 2013, and was hospitalized at Defendant Hospital on April 22, 2013.

At the time of being hospitalized in the Defendant Hospital, Plaintiff A was fluored by the center of the father at 10-11 in chronology with the post-sulmatization and pressured by the size, and the part at 8-9 in chronology was in a narrow state in spine in addition to the post-sulmatization in chronology, and there was a yellow fluorization on the left side.

On April 24, 2013, Defendant D carried out a sule 8-9 with respect to Plaintiff A, by removing yellow sullare and sule sule sule sule sule sule sule sule 8-9, partially removing the drillings of the parts above 9-11, and by removing the sule sule sule sule sule sule sule sule sule sule sule sule sule sule sule

E. After the instant surgery, the Plaintiff A was aware of her share of the Plaintiff, but there was no movement.

The medical personnel of the defendant hospital confirmed the father's side symptoms No. 9-11 as a result of the MRI test and performed pharmacologic treatment, etc. against the plaintiff A.

Plaintiff

A, after the instant surgery, the remaining forces were improved on April 25, 2013 following the instant surgery, and the movement on the right side and the left-hand bridge was possible on April 30, 2013, and the left-hand side is not required on May 6, 2013.

arrow