beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff A corresponding to the money ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The relationship 1) The plaintiff A is the defendant school foundation F (hereinafter "the defendant school").
) H Hospital operated by the H Hospital (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant Hospital”).
(2) Plaintiff B is the wife of Plaintiff A, Plaintiff C and D are the children of Plaintiff C and Plaintiff E, and Plaintiff E is the mother of Plaintiff A.
B. (1) On October 8, 2008, Plaintiff A complained of pains, etc. from Defendant G at the Defendant Hospital, upon receiving first medical treatment from Defendant G, and Defendant G confirmed that the 6th Gyeong body was destroyed on the result of the X-Rray test against Plaintiff A, and had the Plaintiff undergo the MRI test against Plaintiff A. (2) on October 20, 2008, Defendant G explained the Plaintiff that the MaI test showed that the MaI test was found to have occurred on the 5-6 MaI test results and clinical symptoms (the Defendant diagnosed the MaI as a tuberculosis infection based on the results of the MaRI test, the MaI test results, and the MaI test results and clinical symptoms, and thereby, the Ma G had been urged to suffer severe pressure on the fatal body and pressure on the fatal body of the fatal body.
C. 1) The Plaintiff A was hospitalized at the Defendant Hospital to undergo an operation on October 23, 2008, and thereafter, from October 24, 2008 to October 13:25, 2008 to October 24, 2008, the Plaintiff A performed an operation on the part of the police station at the Defendant G (hereinafter “the first operation”).
(1) At the time of the first operation, Defendant G confirmed that salt was influencated with 5 to 5, the satis and the satise bones of 5, and the satise bones of 6, and the satise bones of 5 to 5-6, and removed part of the infected bones of the satise, and approach the satise to the satise of the satise to the satise of the satise of the satise. At the time of the operation, Defendant G displayed the satise of the satise with the satise of the satise and the satise of the satise of the satise of the satise of the satise of the satise of the satis