A. 1) The defendant medical corporation C (hereinafter “the defendant foundation”)

2) The term “E Hospital” (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant Hospital”) in Daejeon Seo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D

(2) The Plaintiff is a medical corporation that operates a hospital in the name of the name of the medical corporation, and the Defendant B is a doctor in static surgery who works in the Defendant hospital. (2) The Plaintiff is a person who has received neological surgery from Defendant B at the Defendant hospital.

B. Around 17:47 on January 4, 2015, the Plaintiff was suffering from serious pain, and the Plaintiff was receiving medical treatment from Defendant B at the Defendant hospital, but the status was not changed. (ii) On January 5, 2015, the Plaintiff was re-exploded to the Defendant hospital, and Defendant B diagnosed the Plaintiff as a serious confluent signboard escape certificate No. 3-4 and a protruding escape certificate No. 4-5 on March 5, 2015.

3) On January 5, 2015, around 09:30 on January 5, 2015, Defendant B is limited to the Plaintiff’s nephical marological surgery (hereinafter “neological marological surgery”) at least 4-5 times.

(4) Defendant B took measures to transfer the Plaintiff to the F Hospital on January 6, 2015, the following day: (a) around January 10, 2015, when the symptoms, such as the reduction of the sense and the decline in the calendar, were caused to the Plaintiff around the same day; (b) Defendant B took measures to transfer the Plaintiff to the F Hospital.

5) After being transferred to a F Hospital, the Plaintiff was under the diagnosis of the lower half-generation and the urine disorder, etc., and was subject to emergency pressure and hydronuclear removal, etc., but the function not to keep to the right was somewhat improved. (c) At present, the Plaintiff’s current state of the Plaintiff is in the state of incomplete paralysis, depreciation, fall in the face of urine, and urine disorder. (d) On May 31, 2017, the Prosecutor decided on May 31, 2017 with respect to the Defendant B, “Defendant B,” with limited to CT shooting, not subject to the adaptation of the eurology, and the Plaintiff, the status of hard drive of a large amount of disc escape.