(영문) 대전지방법원 2019.02.28 2016가단218635

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 대전지방법원 2019.02.28 2016가단218635

손해배상(의)

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On October 21, 2012, the Plaintiff was hospitalized in C Hospital operated by the Defendant under the name of “satisfying satisfying satfy and satfying satfying satfys on the left side,” and received “mathy satfy and sating satfy satfys” on October 24, 2012, and was released from the hospital upon receipt of “mathy satfysatfy” on November 24, 2012.

B. On January 16, 2013, the Plaintiff was hospitalized in C Hospital on March 22, 2013. However, the Plaintiff received the “pathosome surgery” on June 27, 2013, where the cure of the urine was delayed due to the urology, and the urine symptoms were presented.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1-2 and 1-3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The Plaintiff’s summary 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion that the negligent Plaintiff suffered from urine disease, which led to predicting side effects, etc. in advance to determine whether to operate the instant surgery, and that there was a permanent disability that could not be seated to the Plaintiff due to negligence in failing to take prompt and appropriate measures to prevent the occurrence of post-treatment by continuously monitoring after the instant surgery. 2) The Plaintiff’s violation of the duty to explain did not properly explain the post-treatment that could have occurred due to the instant surgery.

B. As to the allegation of negligence for 1 medical examination, the following circumstances, i.e., the result of the physical examination of the head of the hospital and the head of the Association of this court, and the overall purport of the arguments, which can be seen by adding to the overall purport of the arguments, i.e., the opinions that ① physical examination is likely to have been another cause, not due to the removal of part of the Plaintiff’s growth function due to the instant operation, but to the removal of the Plaintiff’s growth function due to the instant operation, i.e., the removal from the floor, and the removal from the floor, i.e., the removal from the floor of the instant operation, i., the escape from the operation is not cured, and the surgery continues to be exposed to the upper frame, and

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 2021.04.14 2020나312375

-대구지방법원 김천지원 2018.07.19 2015가단33386

-서울동부지방법원 2015.04.30 2013가단118196

-서울남부지방법원 2017.02.10 2016가단236852

-대구지방법원영덕지원 2020.02.18 2018가단10918