Among the judgment of the first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the amount of additional payment shall be revoked.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing this case is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing this case is the same as the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal of some contents as follows.

As a result of the court's entrustment of the examination of medical records to the F Association of the reasons of the first instance judgment, the result of the court's entrustment of the examination of the medical records to the G Hospital of this court "B" and to the respective F Association of this court, the result of the court of first instance and the court of first instance entrusted the examination of the medical records to the G Hospital of this court, and the result of the court of first instance entrusted the physical examination to the G Hospital of this court

The following shall be added between the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance 9, 8 and 9:

【Third, the appraisal of the first instance court also presented the opinion that “this case’s surgery is deemed to have been performed normally,” “The possibility of direct damage to balves during the normal surgery is very low,” and “The location of balves or holes fixed to the balves, and it is judged that the three days after the surgery was performed normally in the CT examination, and there is little possibility of balves damage in the process of making a fixed balgs and holes,” and “The possibility of balves cutting by an apparatus during the surgery during the Plaintiff’s balves test level and gal transmission speed test is low.” On the grounds of the first instance judgment, the ground of the first instance judgment “balves balves balves” in the “Balves” in the 11th sentence of the first instance judgment is considered to be “dalves or balves.”

The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, from 9th to 10th 6th .

① The assessment of the court of the first instance is that “the place where the Plaintiff complained of the symptoms of the sufficient sewage immediately after the instant operation was restored.” As the Plaintiff applied the hub before the recovery room, it appears that the time when the Plaintiff applied the hub to the Plaintiff, and then appeal for the symptoms of the sufficient sewage would be within one hour. This time is due to the lapse of this time.