2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

A. Defendant A’s hospitalization and treatment 1) Defendant A, as a student, is a diver and operated by the Plaintiff on January 2, 2012, Defendant A’s government-specific hospital at the Tol University (hereinafter “Plaintiff hospital”).

(2) On May 24, 2012, the patient was hospitalized as a deficit of two dubs and discharged on May 24, 2012 after the surgery. In this case, the unpaid medical expenses equivalent to the patient’s burden was KRW 10,03,920. (2) Defendant B is the father of Defendant A. Defendant C is the mother of Defendant A. Defendant C was the mother of Defendant A. Defendant C signed in the “agreement” column and the “joint guarantor” column of the Plaintiff hospital’s hospitalization agreement, and the “patient” column of the application for selective hospitalization is indicated in the name of Defendant A, and the name of Defendant C and the signature of the “applicant” column.

B. On May 31, 2012, the Plaintiff hospital sent the content-certified mail demanding the payment of unpaid medical expenses to Defendant C, a hospitalization guarantor, on the ground that the Defendant’s unpaid medical expenses incurred due to discharge without permission due to the default of medical expenses. The Defendant C paid KRW 2 million to the Plaintiff hospital on March 4, 2013, when Defendant A was in an economic difficult situation to this end, and Defendant A was expected to perform an additional operation at Samsung Medical Board because of the lack of the disease in spite of the operation at the Plaintiff hospital, and after the additional operation was performed, Defendant C sent the content-certified mail verifying that the additional operation was conducted.

3. There is no additional medical expenses, and the Plaintiff hospital again sent a content-certified mail stating that it will pay unpaid medical expenses to Defendant C, a joint and several surety of Defendant A, and that it will proceed with legal procedures when the performance should not be performed, on February 4, 2016. Accordingly, on February 22, 2016, Defendant C received multiple operations at the Plaintiff hospital, but did not completely recover from the Plaintiff hospital, resulting in additional operations and treatment, and economic difficulties.