1. Of the part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance, the following amount of money ordered to be paid.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, with regard to the assertion that the defendant emphasizes or adds to this court, adding the following "2. Additional Judgment" to the argument that the defendant emphasizes or adds to this court, and the judgment of the court of first instance excluding referring to "3." and referring to "the scope of liability for damages of 3...."" as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. As to the assertion on the violation of the duty of guidance, the medical personnel of the Defendant hospital asserted that the medical personnel of the Defendant hospital fulfilled the duty of care required in clinical trials, since the medical personnel of the Defendant hospital performed the instant operation to wear a wood protection unit as a direction subsequent to the instant operation, and where the Plaintiff and the nursing personnel scambly ske the auxiliary devices in the invasion, or during the scambling and moving of the auxiliary devices at the time of walking and moving, the medical personnel of the Defendant hospital provided their best efforts to prevent safety accidents, such as by scaming the instructions on patients

In light of the above, the Plaintiff may cause damage to spine and water if the Plaintiff did not properly fix the neck as a patient from the lavated lap signboard operation. As such, the medical personnel of the Defendant Hospital is obligated to clearly explain to the Plaintiff the reason for wearing the lave, the method of wearing the lap, the precautions, etc., and to provide guidance and explanation to the Plaintiff to check the condition of wearing the lave when the Plaintiff works in the lave attitude, and to take appropriate measures, such as lighting.

However, in full view of the statements in Gap evidence 4-3, Eul evidence 3, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 7, Eul evidence 4-5 video products in Eul evidence 4-5, Eul's witness of the first instance court, Eul's witness of the first instance court's witness of this court's witness Eul, and the whole purport of the arguments, the court did not have any indication that the plaintiff explained about the method of wearing the protective belt of this case before the accident in the medical records of the defendant hospital and the precautions for the accident of this case (the defendant is A).