logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2015.04.17 2013나2021749
채무부존재확인
Text

1. The defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The defendant-Counterclaim plaintiff's counterclaim brought at the trial.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On February 26, 2011, the Plaintiff operated the Ma Hospital (hereinafter “Plaintiff Hospital”) with the trade name, and the Defendant visited the Plaintiff Hospital on the grounds of “the symptoms of left leg sloping,” etc., and subsequently, solicited the Plaintiff to visit the hospital again on the following grounds of economic reasons, and subsequently, continued to visit the hospital on the following grounds.

B. On February 28, 2011, the Defendant visited the Plaintiff Hospital to conduct a diagnosis. On the basis of MDR images, etc., the Plaintiff diagnosed as “the escape of 4-5 conical signboards and the evabrate electric vertebrate,” and prescribed negoti (H-lase 17 (TF 4/5 L/5 L/B B B L/B L, L/C 4/5/S1/ 00), and the doctor C, who is an employee of the Plaintiff, performed negotition by inserting injection on the Defendant’s lebane, in accordance with the above prescription on the same day.

(hereinafter “instant medical treatment”). C.

The above prescription and procedure are the following: “The Hyurona which is used for the prevention of oil erosion, selective anti-scopic anti-scopic anti-scopic anti-scopic anti-scopic anti-scopic anti-sopic anti-sopic anti-sopic anti-sopic and anti-sopic anti-scopic anti-sopic anti-sopic anti-sopic anti-sopic anti-sopic anti-sop

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, the entry of Eul Nos. 4 through 8 (including a branch number, if any), the result of the physical appraisal commissioned to the President of the Kamamama Hospital at the Korea National University, and the result of fact inquiry, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments;

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant claimed compensation for damages by asserting that the instant medical treatment results led to the left-hand eromatic erogate, which had not existed before it was more serious, and that the instant medical treatment continues to undergo medical treatment due to the symptoms on the left side, the symptoms on the back of the outbreak, etc. However, any medical malpractice in the instant medical treatment.

arrow