1. The part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid under the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked.

The defendant.

Basic Facts

On September 30, 2009, the Plaintiff, who implemented an injection of nicotine in a free body hospital and a free body mouth, was diagnosed as having been conducted by the CSC (Choor Choor Choinopay and a central beerophy) as a result of the diagnosis conducted by the Defendant’s sexual hospital (hereinafter “Defendant hospital”) at the Han River University sexual hospital operated by the Defendant, and continued to provide outpatient treatment at the intervals of one month, but did not show symptoms.

The medical personnel of the Defendant Hospital carried out an Abane injection on April 19, 2010 for the Plaintiff’s reduction of the studio and the defense of eyesight, and as a result, the opical vision was set from 0.4 to 0.6, and as a result, the central network thickness was set from 321st to 278th to 328th to the string, but the net load was not completely cut.

Accordingly, on June 1, 2010, the medical personnel of the Defendant Hospital once again implemented the Abanon injection in the urine glass hospital.

(B) On April 19, 2010, the Defendant hospital (hereinafter “instant injecting”) additionally paid KRW 73,810 in the case of the first injecting, and KRW 70,90 in the case of the second injecting, on June 1, 2010, the instant injecting, “the second injecting,” and the combination of these two injecting, “each injecting,” respectively. Meanwhile, on the premise that the Plaintiff received each injecting, the Plaintiff selected both the Defendant hospital and the professor at the Defendant hospital as the principal doctor and the doctor. On the premise of this, the Defendant hospital also paid KRW 73,810 in the case of the first injecting, and KRW 70,90 in the case of the second injecting, but in fact, the intention to perform each injecting was the fourth in the major of the Defendant hospital’s hospital.

On June 2, 2010, the following day after the second injecting, the Plaintiff entered the Defendant Hospital on June 2, 2010, including the process after the enforcement of the second injecting, and the eyesight in the previous injecting was measured by 0.15, and was not observed, and was stable in the condition of the bomb.

The plaintiff on June 3, 2010.