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

A. Defendant B as the party is a father and a medical specialist who establishes and operates a medical institution called E Hospital (hereinafter “Defendant Hospital”); Defendant C and D treated the Plaintiff as a doctor belonging to the said hospital.

B. (1) The Plaintiff, on March 28, 2008, visited the Defendant Hospital on March 28, 2008 and received medical treatment from Defendant C, on the ground that the Plaintiff, who was diagnosed on March 28, 2008, was presumed to have a sense that he had a son’s book.

Defendant C failed to verify the species that were met by promoting the Plaintiff’s promotion, and implemented the cryptive portrait and cryptive radio photography.

The defendant C confirmed the low-scale table of size of 0.54 x 0.17 cm in the direction of 3:00 on the right side of the plaintiff's right side from the result of the prolong wave, and recommended the plaintiff on March 31, 2008 to conduct a prolong wave tracking inspection.

(2) On February 23, 2009, the Plaintiff visited the Defendant Hospital by visiting the Defendant Hospital, by citing the embarrasses that the words would be unfolded again on the left left left bank, and was subject to the Defendant C’s examination for the use of the losophical portrait and the losophical radiation photographing.

Medical Doctor F belonging to the Defendant Hospital checks the number of 1.16cc in the direction of 2:00 on the left side of the Plaintiff’s left side as a result of the test, and the same year.

3.3. Around March, the Plaintiff recommended the Plaintiff to undergo a periodic verification and an inspection six months after the date of the inspection.

(3) On July 18, 2011, the Plaintiff visited the Defendant Hospital to conduct a breast-pathy test, requesting the Defendant Hospital to visit the Defendant Hospital to conduct a breast-pathy test, and the Defendant C was carried out together with the breast-pathy test on the part of July 18, 201.

On August 10, 201, doctor F recommended the Plaintiff to conduct a periodic tracking test by informing the Plaintiff of the results of the protopy test.

(4) On March 28, 2012, the Plaintiff, on April 20, 2012, intended to subscribe to a new insurance after cancelling the universal type insurance contract with Samsung Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd., but the Defendant’s hospital was refused to subscribe to the insurance due to the past record that there was a rearctative type as a result of the examination of the Defendant hospital’s genetic shooting. As such, the Plaintiff visited the Defendant hospital on April 20, 2012 and visited the Defendant D.