A. On February 25, 2013, Plaintiff A received physical treatment at another hospital after receiving the cryptive surgery from the I Hospital operated by the Defendants due to the pain of the vertebro boom, 4-5 vertebro boom, the left-hand symptoms, etc. due to the vertebro boom in spine 4-5, the vertero boom, and the low-class b

B. Nevertheless, Plaintiff A, who did not show symptoms, had to go to the I Hospital again on March 6, 2013 and received vertebrate extension surgery on March 8, 2013.

Plaintiff

A on March 8, 2013, the doctor in charge of the I Hospital received an operation to remove yellow dusts (hereinafter “instant operation”) from the J of the doctor in charge of the I Hospital on the left-hand 5th left-hand side of the aftermath of the dominium.

C. After the operation, there were symptoms of the symptoms of the fluence and the fluoral control disorder to the plaintiff A, which are not right-hand.

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 5, 6, and 7, result of commissioning physical examination to the head of the Eul University Hospital, result of commissioning medical examination to the head of the Korean Medical Association

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion is the employer of the Plaintiff’s doctor in charge, and thus, the Plaintiffs should compensate the Plaintiff for damages (such as lost profit, active damage, consolation money, etc., KRW 115,354,329, consolation money, etc., KRW 3 million for the Plaintiff B, C, D, and E) caused by the Plaintiff’s occupational negligence by the doctor in charge.

Plaintiff

A’s doctor in charge did not explain the risk of the surgery before the instant surgery and anticipated post-treatment, etc. to the Plaintiff, and limited the right of choice for the Plaintiff to decide whether to undergo the surgery. As such, the Defendants shall compensate for the damages incurred therefrom.

3. Determination

A. After the operation of this case, there were symptoms of symptoms and obstacles to controlling Maternal, which have not been or had not been done to the plaintiff A before or after the operation of this case, and the fact that this seems to have been caused by Maternal Maternal Maternal Materna does not conflict between the parties.

However, the above facts and the evidence submitted by the plaintiffs alone are as follows. Gap evidence Nos. 5, 6, 7, and 5.