logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주고등법원(전주) 2019.09.05 2019나10243
손해배상(의)
Text

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 2013, 2013, Plaintiff A related Plaintiff A received treatment from “G Council members” (hereinafter “instant hospital”) operated by the Defendant from “G Council members” (hereinafter “instant hospital”), and Plaintiff B is the spouse of Plaintiff A.

B. On April 17, 2013, Plaintiff A complained of the Plaintiff’s internal support, the Defendant’s diagnosis and treatment process 1) Plaintiff A, who was diagnosed with “the certificate of physical disability, mathsitis,” and received treatment until April 22, 2013, upon receiving the diagnosis of “the certificate of physical disability, maths infection,” and subsequently, Plaintiff A was hospitalized into HU and HU and discharged on April 30, 2013.

Plaintiff

A In other words, on May 1, 2013, he was hospitalized in the H regular surgery and discharged on May 13, 2013. On May 2, 2013, 2013, a person was hospitalized in the H regular surgery, and the Defendant complained of the symptoms that “from April 14, 2013, it is difficult to walk between the new wall and the symptoms that it is difficult to see the stairs, and it is difficult to see at the time of work on the job,” and stated that “I inspected a telegraph including brain and spine in the emergency room of the former University Hospital on April 22, 2013, and did not find the cause of brain CT shooting.”

Accordingly, on May 2, 2013, the Defendant conducted a government X-ray inspection and a skin inspection against the Plaintiff on May 2, 2013. On the other hand, the Defendant requested a wide-area RoI inspection on both sides of the Iinematographic Institute, the J Rehabilitation Institute, and did not separately prescribe it at the time of the first medical examination.

3. On May 3, 2013, 2013, the results of the examination of the Plaintiff A sent to the Plaintiff’s medical specialist belonging to the Iinematographic Institute as “multi-sexual Hemaritis, such as the posted fright of the side subsequent to the bilateral bridge, e.g., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., g., e., e., e., g., e., e., g., e., e., g., e., e., e.,

arrow