1. The Defendants jointly share KRW 19,775,976 with the Plaintiff, and 5% per annum from June 11, 2014 to November 27, 2018.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Defendant C (hereinafter “Defendant C”) is a medical foundation that operates the “E Hospital” in Ansan-si, Masan-si and Defendant B is a doctor who served as an external medical specialist in the E Hospital.

B. On June 11, 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) sent to E Hospital and undergone a comprehensive health examination, including ultra-frequency and anti-marketing; and (b) sent from Defendant B the phrase “it is necessary to perform a wing-out operation with the reticulator in the process of the transformation of the wing system and the tamper’s process.”

C. The Plaintiff was hospitalized in the E hospital on the same day and received a wing out operation (hereinafter “instant operation”) from Defendant B at least four o’clock in the same day. From several times after the operation, multiple times after the operation feel with severe pains, the number of times after the operation, the number of times after the operation, and the absence of urines, etc., occur, and there was a yellow salkies thereafter.

The plaintiff was hospitalized in the E Hospital for the past, and was hospitalized in the F Hospital on June 16, 2014, due to the above symptoms, such as CT photographing test, medical control prescription, etc.

On the following day, the Plaintiff received a diagnosis that “the coagum sap has been damaged and flown,” and received a coagum sap surgery that removes the coagum 5 p.m. on the same day, directly connects the coagum to the warden, and discharged on June 26, 2014.

E. The Plaintiff filed a complaint with the investigative agency against Defendant B as a crime of injury caused by occupational negligence, and the Korea Medical Dispute Mediation and Arbitration Agency entrusted the appraisal of medical records during the investigation process. There was a reply that Defendant B’s statement that “it is deemed that she would have caused damage to the gate because of misunderstanding that she would have caused damage to the gate because of misunderstanding that she would have caused damage to the gate.”

(f) Defendant B should find the gate properly and remove the gate attached to the gate, and complete an operation without any other long-term damage.