The defendant.

2. The grounds for appeal by the Plaintiff and the Defendant regarding the occurrence of liability for damages and limitation of liability are not significantly different from the allegations in the first instance trial, and the facts of the first instance trial and the determination thereof are acknowledged as legitimate in light of the evidence submitted to this court in the first instance trial.

Therefore, the reasoning for this part of this Court is as follows: (a) except for the case of using the “brine operation” of No. 10 of the judgment of the first instance as “joint surgery”, the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, (b) this part is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

3. The damages suffered by the Plaintiff due to the medical negligence of the Defendant Hospital’s medical personnel are as follows.

The calculation of the period for the convenience of calculation shall be calculated on a monthly basis, and the amount of less than a monthly shall be discarded, and in calculating the amount, the amount of less than a won shall be discarded, and the current price calculation as of the date of the instant surgery (hereinafter referred to as the “the date of the instant accident”) shall be governed by the one-time discount which deducts interim interest at the rate of 5/12 per month from the rate of 5/12 per month.

In addition, it is rejected that the parties' arguments are not stated separately.

A. On September 18, 2017, the first day of the year in which the first day of the year in which the first day of the year in which the first day of the year in which the second day of the year in which the second day of the year in which the second day of the year in which the second day of the year in which the second day of the year in which the second day of the year in which the second day of the year in which the second day of the year in which the second day of the year in which the second day of the year in which the second day of the second day of the year in which the second day of the year in which the second day of the second day of the year in which the second day of the year in which the second day of the second day of the year in which the second day of the year in which the second day of the year in which the second day of the year in which the second day of the year in which the second day of the year in which the second day of the year in which the second day was in which the second day of the year in which the second day of the year was occurred:

B) As 0% of the loss rate of labor capacity between the end of the operating period after the above period falls under “a person who left her mother in the outer state” under class 13 of class 12 attached Table 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the State Compensation Act, the Plaintiff lost 15% of the working capacity.

The argument is asserted.

Domins, Domins, .