1. The Defendant’s KRW 659,734,141 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from June 19, 2013 to November 17, 2015.

1. Basic facts

A. The pertinent Plaintiff of the parties is a person who suffered low oxygen cerebral brain damage after being subject to eroscopic renalacreacreathy (hereinafter “the instant procedure”) at C Hospital (hereinafter “Defendant Hospital”) to eroscopic renalacreacathy; hereinafter “the instant procedure”).

The defendant is the operator of the defendant hospital, and is the non-party E, who is the non-party D and the defendant hospital's major.

B. On June 17, 2013, the Plaintiff’s transfer to the Defendant Hospital and the instant medical procedure 1) was sent to G Hospital located in F in Yangyang-si, Namyang-si. At the time, the heart was normal opinion was observed, and the extension of the fences between both sides was observed as a result of the blood examination showing the sapex identity in blood. At around 12:56 on June 19, 2013, the Plaintiff was transferred to the Defendant Hospital to find out the cause of the closure of the fences. At the time, the Plaintiff was hospitalized in the emergency room of the Defendant Hospital, and the Plaintiff was hospitalized in the 157/103mH at the time of the transfer, and was diagnosed with the overall condition, past history, etc. from E, with the overall condition and past history.

The Defendant Hospital diagnosed the Plaintiff as “confection caused by tin,” and decided to remove the Plaintiff’s tins through dynasty panty panstyphism (ERCP).

As a result of the active climate test for the plaintiff conducted at around 17:14 on the same day, all of the blood pressure test conducted by the plaintiff was 144/73mHg, beerbling 71/ minutes, and oxygen 97%.

3) D on the same day, at around 17:28, in injection to the Plaintiff of 25mg of de-feas (one type of de-feas and drug margin control) and Polol (one type of Poll and pro-fas; hereinafter referred to as “pro-fol”)

(2) The defendant of Eul 160cc (1,600cm)/ Si 160cc (1,600mg)/ the defendant is based on the calculation of paragraph (4) of the following unit conversion methods as stated in the reference documents of April 28, 2015, submitted by himself, respectively, as follows. The plaintiff also is clearly challenged.