(영문) 인천지방법원 2019.09.25 2018나70243

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) 인천지방법원 2019.09.25 2018나70243

손해배상(의)

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

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

purport, purport, and.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On June 29, 2014, the Defendant was involved in a traffic accident where the Defendant was faced with a motor vehicle on the off-to-land, and was transferred to the D Hospital operated by Defendant B via the E Hospital.

B. On July 4, 2014, the Plaintiff was diagnosed at the right bridge bordering, and on July 4, 2014, Defendant C performed a blood static and internal surgery (hereinafter “instant surgery”) on the part of the Plaintiff’s mouths. In the course of the surgery, the drypt, which was an operating device, left on the Plaintiff’s right bridge.

C. After the instant surgery, the medical personnel at D Hospital removed the tamped tissue on July 18, 2014, and performed an dypology surgery on August 11, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3, Eul evidence 3 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion that Defendant C performed the instant surgery, while giving excessive force to dryping, caused the dryplate to get off, and as a result, metal dryplate left on the part of the surgery.

Nevertheless, Defendant C did not inform the Plaintiff of such fact.

D Hospital’s medical team neglected to take rupture measures, such as sterilization and disinfection on the operation department, and the Plaintiff’s right bridge after the instant surgery occurred, and the Plaintiff was subjected to rupture removal surgery and rupture transplantation surgery.

D Hospital's medical team did not explain to the Plaintiff the fact that the drypart could disappear in the course of the surgery, and as a result, the Plaintiff lost the opportunity to choose the method of treatment.

In addition, Defendant C did not provide the Plaintiff with any explanation, despite the fact that the drypt after the instant surgery was broken, whether it was removed from re-operation, and the risk of re-operation, and the method of medical care.

Therefore, Defendant C as a tort, and Defendant C as an employer of Defendant C, the compensation for physical and mental damages to the Plaintiff.

유사 판례

-부산지방법원서부지원 2019.12.10 2019가단108389

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.02.04 2013가합45971

-춘천지방법원원주지원 2015.01.29 2012가합1784

-서울동부지방법원 2018.05.17 2016가합107996

-전주지방법원 2016.06.24 2015나2822