A. On May 2017, the Plaintiff received wing-type chilling chilling in the right in the hospital operated by the Defendant (hereinafter “Defendant hospital”).

B. On November 21, 2017, around 19:00, the Plaintiff was hospitalized in the emergency department of the Defendant hospital, as the Plaintiff’s self-cativity occurred.

Around November 21, 2017, the Defendant hospital conducted a double-face CT inspection at around 8 p.m., and around 8:28 the following day, the Defendant hospital considered the CT inspection as a closed windowperic force. On the other hand, the Plaintiff had been tried to be externally.

C. On November 30, 2017, the Defendant Hospital performed soft surgery and a part-covering surgery to the Plaintiff at around 10 p.m. on November 30, 2017. At the time, the Plaintiff was at the level of 80cc of the complaint before the surgery, and the Plaintiff was at the state of being polluted by the mouth due to a tent.

On December 1, 2017, the Plaintiff began to undergo blood malkites due to acute damage and received blood malkites until December 25, 2017.

E. After the surgery, the Plaintiff was hospitalized in a middle-patient, and moved to a general sick room on December 5, 2017. After that operation, the condition of the Plaintiff, such as the symptoms of the paralysis continue to exist and the respiratory difficulty was deteriorated, and on December 9, 2017, the blood pressure fell from 85/5m HgmH, and the oxygen was treated as an emergency cardiopulmonary resuscitation by 80% away from the oxygen level to 80%.

On December 12, 2017, the medical personnel of the Defendant Hospital confirmed that the Plaintiff was 4.3 cm in the Plaintiff’s her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her shed

F. Around May 2017, there was a fall in the new function due to the diversified reciting type, but the new function has not been recovered by 100% after the acute damage occurred around December 1, 2017.

On May 2017, the Plaintiff’s share of the gymnasium was 60ml/min/1.73m2, but the share of the gymnasium was lower than 40ml/min/1.73m2 after the gymnasium damage.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 2 to 8, and objection.