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

A. Defendant Seoul National University Hospital as the parties to the case (hereinafter “Defendant 1 Hospital”) is the hospital that the Plaintiff received medical treatment, and Defendant B is the person who served as a medical specialist in the film and video department (hereinafter “Defendant 2 member”).

B. Around March 2, 2009, the Plaintiff applied to Defendant 1’s hospital at Defendant 1’s address for the purpose of treatment, including the blood test, and Defendant 1’s hospital did not have any special abnormal opinion. (ii) Defendant 1 hospital’s medical personnel explained to the Plaintiff that “The medical personnel of Defendant 1 hospital need to conduct the brain MRI inspection for a separate examination, for more than one month, and two months should be added to view the result after the examination.” Defendant 1 hospital consented to the method of undergoing the examination and undergoing the examination at the outside, and after undergoing the examination, Defendant 1 hospital’s judgment at Defendant 1 hospital.”

3) On the same day, the Plaintiff: (a) was admitted to Defendant 2’s National Assembly members to undergo brain RI and MDA’s inspection; and (b) Defendant B did not have abnormal opinions; (c) around March 9, 2009, the Plaintiff made a request for a trial of film by visiting the Defendant 1 Hospital; and (d) around March 23, 2009, the result of the trial before March 23, 2009, there were several sponsive dogs around the brain room around both sides.

5) Accordingly, Defendant 1’s medical professionals administered an anti-cerebral blood plate medication to prevent brain stroke, and explained the Plaintiff that continuous medical treatment and progress observation are necessary. 6) The Plaintiff around May 25, 2009 and the same year.

8. At around 31.3, Defendant 1 was admitted to Defendant 1’s hospital and received outpatient treatment, and the Notarial Prize was dead.

7) Accordingly, Defendant 1’s medical professionals explained to the Plaintiff that they had seen the progress of the process after the six months period of time, but the Plaintiff did not visit Defendant 1’s hospital thereafter.

(c).