Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

A. The Defendant et al. is a person who employs medical professionals including C and operates the “E Hospital” located in Daejeon-gu Daejeon Metropolitan City D (hereinafter “Defendant Hospital”).

B. On August 17, 2011, the Plaintiff received medical treatment from Defendant Hospital C, who is a chest and doctor, and decided on August 19, 201 to undergo an operation of livering.

C. On August 19, 2011, the Plaintiff was undergoing a anesthesia surgery on both sides (hereinafter “instant surgery”). The Plaintiff was hospitalized in the Defendant hospital by April 26, 2012 due to the weakening of the left-hand bridge and the symptoms symptoms on the cause (hereinafter “instant symptoms”), and was hospitalized in the Defendant hospital, and received outpatient treatment.

At the time of April 26, 2012, the Plaintiff drafted a written agreement (hereinafter “instant agreement”) with F, the head of the Defendant Hospital, with the F, which was the head of the Defendant Hospital, on the following terms and conditions relating to the post-treatment, which occurred in the left-hand side after the instant operation. The Defendant Hospital paid KRW 6,00,000 according to the instant agreement:

C. Foods

A. In relation to the foregoing case, A is to be paid a million won upon agreement from the Defendant Hospital.

(b) the E Hospital:

When implementing the contents of paragraph (1), the patient A shall not be held liable for civil or criminal liability to the E Hospital.

(2) If a dispute or dispute arises with a private insurance company to which a patient A has joined, no objection shall be raised to the E hospital and the doctor in charge.

E. According to the results of the physical commission and fact inquiry with respect to the head of Chungcheongnamnam University Hospital, such as the result of the physical commission with respect to the Plaintiff, the appraisal of the out-of-work and the appraisal of the Plaintiff complained of the abnormal sense of the present left part. The Plaintiff has undergone spine operation before 10 years, and the Plaintiff appears to have been in the opinion that the allocation of the evaculation of the evaculation carried out on February 2, 2013 is reduced compared to the right side, and there is no obstacle to spine movement, and there is no other event.