1. The Defendant’s KRW 35,414,198 as well as 5% per annum from October 21, 2013 to June 24, 2016 to the Plaintiff.

On October 15, 2013, the Plaintiff was hospitalized in C Hospital operated by the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant Hospital”) under the diagnosis of wing infection.

In order to diagnose that the plaintiff's symptoms have several seats in the KOG, and to treat the plaintiff's symptoms, the defendant hospital decided to conduct internal epidemital ephesion (hereinafter "the procedure of this case").

The instant procedure is an inspection to observe a spath, fals, fals, fences, backcitings, and extractions using internal diameters. The instant procedure is an inspection to put internal diameters up to a spath and to put spathic spathic spathic spathic spathic spathic spathic spathic spathic spathic spathic spathic spathic spathic spathic spathic spathic s

From October 21, 2013, the physician in charge of the Defendant Hospital performed the instant procedure against the Plaintiff from around 17:49 on October 21, 2013. After doing so, the Plaintiff had access to the Guns by filing an appeal for the pains.

However, during the instant procedure, there was a sloping hole, and the contents of the funeral have flown into and out of the mouth, and there was a diversity resulting in a diversity change to the surrounding organization.

Accordingly, on October 22, 2013, the physician in charge of the defendant hospital performed the laundry operation against the plaintiff on or around 14:20 on October 22, 2013, and confirmed that there was an extracter's side species, chloop change, C-lop's central part of the inner part of the c-lop, and the treatment of the said ceiling and hump infection through the 15-hour general anesthesia surgery.

On December 26, 2013, the Plaintiff was discharged from the Defendant Hospital.

[Grounds for recognition] Gap 1-1 to 1-6, 2, 3, and 7, and the results of the request for the examination of medical records to the director of the Central University Hospital of this Court and the purport of the entire arguments.

Judgment

According to the above facts of recognition, the doctor in charge of the defendant hospital shall be the doctor.