2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

A. On October 31, 2014, Plaintiff A received a diagnosis of a light signboard disability accompanied by a scopic disease certificate from a F Hospital (hereinafter “Defendant Hospital”) operated by Defendant Medical Corporation D (hereinafter “Defendant Foundation”), and on November 5, 2014, Plaintiff A received from the medical personnel of the Defendant Hospital the removal of and scopic signboards between 3-4 popic signboards and scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic (hereinafter “instant primary operation”).

B. From November 16, 2014, while receiving hospitalized treatment at the Defendant hospital, Plaintiff A discharged the Defendant hospital from the Defendant hospital on the 21st of the same month during the period of receiving treatment, such as stroke medication, from the medical staff of the Defendant hospital, after having been hospitalized.

C. After that, on November 24, 2014, the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the instant secondary surgery”) was conducted on the 27th day of the same month from the medical personnel of the instant hospital, following the removal of a refratary transplant tree and the removal of an artificial refrativity and the 3-4-5th day of the 3-5th day of the 3-4th day of the 201st day.

Plaintiff

A, after the instant secondary surgery, partially improved symptoms of the gymnasium, and discharged from the gymnasium on December 23, 2014. However, at present, symptoms, such as the gymnasium, pedestrian disability, and restriction on the movement of the gymnasium (hereinafter referred to as “instant symptoms”) between the gymnasium and the gymnasium.

E. The plaintiff B and C are the parents of the plaintiff A.

【Ground for recognition】 In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1-1, 2, 3, Gap evidence No. 2, Gap evidence No. 3-1, 2, Gap evidence No. 4, Gap evidence No. 9-1, and Eul evidence No. 2, the result of the request to the Korea Medical Dispute Mediation and Arbitration Agency for the evaluation of medical records by this court, the result of the request to the Korea Medical Dispute Mediation and Arbitration Agency for the evaluation of medical records, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the plaintiffs' assertion is that the plaintiffs A violated the above duty of care and duty of explanation as follows by the medical personnel of the defendant hospital.