1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid below shall be cancelled.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a doctor who operates a medical clinic within and outside C (hereinafter “Plaintiff hospital”).

B. On March 9, 2013, the Defendant complained of the dysium increase and added the Plaintiff hospital to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff diagnosed the Defendant as “pysium infection” based on the results of the examination, such as CT shooting, etc. on the basis of the results of the examination against the Defendant. On the other hand, the Plaintiff presented the opinion that the dysium in the dysium book and the dysium infection in the dysium, and performed the dysium surgery through the dysium dysium in the same day, while performing the dysium surgery through the dysium dysium and the dysium in the dysium, etc., on the ground that the dysium surgery

(hereinafter “instant surgery”). C.

However, after the instant surgery, it was found that the result of the pathology test on the Defendant’s parts of the surgery was not cancer.

After the instant surgery, the Defendant transferred to the Gyeong University Hospital on March 15, 2013 and received hospitalized treatment at the relevant place because the pulmonary color symptoms were not improved while hospitalized in the Plaintiff Hospital and being hospitalized in the process of the instant surgery.

E. At the end of April, 2013, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking compensation for damages on the ground that the Plaintiff performed an climatic climatic climatic climatic climatic cliff that is not necessary as above due to medical negligence, and violated the duty to explain while performing the instant operation. On November 13, 2014, the above court found the Defendant to be not cancer as a result of the organizational examination of the Defendant. The Defendant’s assertion of medical negligence was not accepted on the ground that there is insufficient reason to view that the Plaintiff was negligent in the diagnosis or surgery solely on the ground that the clife occurred after the instant surgery. However, if the Plaintiff explained the Defendant of the results of the video department reading reading before the instant surgery to the Defendant and symptoms suspected of cancer during the surgery, the above court shall implement the clific clific clif.