A. The Defendant operates the “G Hospital” (hereinafter “Defendant Hospital”), and the Plaintiff A is a person who received an operation at the Defendant Hospital, and the Plaintiff B’s spouse, the Plaintiff C, D, and E is a child of the Plaintiff.

B. On March 26, 2015, as a result of the Plaintiff A’s inspection of the Round MRI conducted on the part of the Defendant Hospital on the symptoms of Huuri No. 1, Mari No. 1, the laba, the laba of the bridge (in particular, the left-hand side), and both sides of the bridge, the disc of the upper left-hand side of the Do, No. 5-00-1, 195.

C. Before May 14, 2015, Plaintiff A’s doctor conducted physical therapy and pharmacologic treatment with Plaintiff A, and on May 15, 2015, Plaintiff A performed the crypology surgery (hereinafter “instant surgery”). D.

On June 18, 2015, Plaintiff A discharged from the instant surgery, and was under medical treatment again to the Defendant Hospital due to symptoms that cannot be on the right bridge, and received from Plaintiff A (hereinafter referred to as “the second surgery”) due to the internal pressure on March 21, 2016, taking into account the pressure on the right side of the 4-5th century.

E. On June 21, 2016, Plaintiff A was determined by the Gan University Hospital 4-5 Embrate chronism, No. 5 of the Embronism, and was found to be an obstacle to symptoms, such as symptoms that caused the defrisoning of the surrounding body to the body, and that the breaths were unlikely to go up to the body, and that the breath fell below, due to the defrisonism, No. 5 of the Embronism, the 1stal root damage, the right-hand sewage

hereinafter referred to as the "aftermath disability of this case"

(ii) [Grounds for recognition] unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7 (including virtual numbers, response of physical examinations by the K Hospital head, response of each medical record appraisal result by the K Hospital head, response of each medical record appraisal result by the K Hospital head, the purport of all pleadings;

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. From the date of the instant operation to the Plaintiff, the lower and lower end of the right-hand bridge, and the adequate sewage will not be new.