Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 43,816,504 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from November 12, 2012 to August 27, 2014.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The relevant Plaintiff is a person who received a regional inhalement and transplant surgery on two occasions from August 27, 2012 to November 12, 2012, operated by the Defendant at the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Dental clinic (hereinafter “Defendant Hospital”).
B. On August 20, 2012, the Plaintiff was consulted with the Defendant at the Defendant hospital on the buckbucks, the local inhaled area, and the face side of spucks. On August 27, 2012, the Plaintiff inhaled the area from the Defendant on the buckbucks, and received an operation to transplant it on the math and spine base (hereinafter “the first local transplant operation”). (2) On August 31, 2012, the Plaintiff was in freezing the area from the Defendant, and was in freezing the area on the math and sp, and was in freezing custody. On November 12, 2012, the Plaintiff was found to have received from the Defendant a local surgery to transplant the area in which he stored on the math and spine on the part of spacks (hereinafter “the second local surgery”).
After preparing another hospital's written opinion, the Defendant took all of the plaintiffs.
C. Since then, on November 15, 2012, the Plaintiff complained of symptoms, such as the face-to-face skin, hair, hair, spores, etc., and applied them to the Macheon-gu 1174 Macheon-si 1174 Macheon-si.
The medical personnel of the above hospital conducted the diagnosis by the left-hand non-fluor and the head of the fluoral department of the cooperation with the plaintiff, and the fluorily refluoring on the same day on the 17th of the same month.
The plaintiff is receiving regular medical treatment in Gangnam-gu Seoul EF assessment, and has currently a disorder in the trace of the inner side.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, purport of the whole pleadings
2. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. The plaintiff 1's assertion of negligence in medical treatment is a secondary local transplant operation against the plaintiff.