(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.01.11 2013가단277375

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.01.11 2013가단277375

손해배상(의)

Text

1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s main claim and the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s counterclaim are dismissed, respectively.

2. Of the costs of lawsuit.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The defendant is a doctor who operates the D'Burology “D's urbology” in Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant Council Member”).

B. 1) On November 1, 201, the Plaintiff: (a) sought advice on the expansion, etc. of her head by finding the Defendant’s National Assembly member; (b) received from the Defendant on November 8, 2011, the Plaintiff received her head extension surgery from the Defendant to injecting the area to her head (hereinafter “first surgery”); (c) on March 8, 2012, the Plaintiff stated that the Defendant’s Council member re-expled the Defendant’s National Assembly member and went out of the area to her head and her head, and the her head extension surgery (hereinafter “second operation”) was conducted by the Defendant by injecting the her head of her return.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the main claim

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff had been performing the primary surgery to transplant a local area from the Defendant to ear, but failed to expand the drinking landscape while the area that was transplanted was missing. After the secondary surgery to transplant a fluor, the Plaintiff caused a drilling due to the Defendant’s negligence in the process of the surgery, such as a chest change in the shape of a fluorial shape.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages caused by the wrong surgery of this case.

B. 1) Determination on the assertion of non-performance of obligation (A) The obligation to treat a patient with the doctor’s duty to achieve the same result as the treatment of a disease is not the obligation to be achieved, but the obligation to take necessary and appropriate measures for treatment in light of the current medical level with the duty of due care of a good manager for the treatment of a patient, i.e., the obligation to take necessary and appropriate measures for treatment. Therefore, if the doctor fulfilled such duty of care as above, even if the disease was not treated as a result of the treatment, it cannot be deemed that

유사 판례

-인천지방법원부천지원 2016.10.19 2015가단113073

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.02.16 2014가단57981

-청주지방법원 2017.11.02 2015고단1921 (1)

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.10.22 2013가단5023153

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.06.03 2015가단5234254