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

A. On February 18, 2014, the Plaintiff discovered that there was a fcm of approximately 6 cm in diameter on the right side of the double wall while the Plaintiff was implementing the second sect of the double part at the National Assembly members of the Department in C.

B. Thereafter, on March 6, 2014, the Plaintiff confirmed that the Plaintiff was at the end of the body of the franchisium by being hospitalized in the Doldong University Hospital, and conducted a franchisium and franchisium franchising the removal of the franchisium and the next day, along with the removal of the franchising leader and the removal of the franchisium.

C. The Plaintiff’s leader in the mouth removed from the above surgery was confirmed to be an external material for organizational inspection purposes.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 3-1, 2, 4, Gap evidence 5-1, 2, 6-1 through 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) On July 4, 1996, the Defendant Incorporated Foundation, the Daegu Pungsung (hereinafter “Defendant Hospital”).

Defendant B and other medical personnel (hereinafter “Defendant’s doctor”).

2) The king king for the delivery of the second child under the house (hereinafter referred to as “the king king” of this case)

(2) After undergoing the instant scopic surgery, the Plaintiff did not undergo the scopic surgery before receiving the scopic scopical surgery as above.

3) Inasmuch as it is apparent in light of the empirical rule that the Plaintiff could not enter the Plaintiff’s clothes, except for the method of entering the Plaintiff’s clothes by external factors, such as an operation, the Plaintiff’s final process of performing the instant king surgery at the Defendant Hospital at the Defendant Hospital, which was in the process of performing the instant king surgery at the Defendant Hospital, would be frightly inferred that the Plaintiff was frightened by leaving the Plaintiff’s clothes within the Plaintiff’s clothes while leaving the Plaintiff’s clothes in the process of performing the instant king surgery at the Defendant Hospital’s negligence. 4) Even if the instant king surgery was not left during the instant king surgery, the Plaintiff’s negligence at the time of performing the surgery at the time of the Plaintiff