1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 19, 2012, the Plaintiff received an operation from Defendant B from Defendant B in the Ethical department of Defendant C’s operation, following which he/she received an operation to perform an operation to perform a boom in the boom in the boom on September 25, 2012.

B. After that, the Plaintiff received medical treatment from Defendant C on September 26, 2012, and was hospitalized in the Republic of Korea on September 27, 2012 on the ground that he/she was a member of the Eanan District Council, but transferred to Defendant B as a member of the Fanche department of Defendant D’s operation on the ground that he/she was informed salt. However, on September 28, 2012, the symptoms were serious, and the Plaintiff was administered with the fancheal dysium because he/she transferred to Busan 0 Hospital.

C. The Plaintiff’s eterococus fealis is the cause germs of the information infection that occurred in the Plaintiff’s seat. At present, the Plaintiff’s visual disability rate is 25% due to the decline in the vision.

[Ground of recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 1-1-2, and the result of this court's commission of physical examination to the director of Dongnam University Hospital, the result of fact-finding with respect to the director of Jinwon University affiliated Busan University, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion on the existence of medical malpractice is based on the following medical negligence, arguing that the Plaintiff lost the capability of defense, and Defendant B, C, and D constitute the employer of Defendant B, who directly performed medical practice, and that Defendant C and D seek payment of medical expenses amounting to KRW 2,976,430, consolation money amounting to KRW 47,023,570.

(2) Defendant B and C had the Plaintiff infected with Eterococus falis (hereinafter referred to as “B assertion”).

(3) Defendant C did not provide appropriate medical treatment and treatment despite the diagnosis of the guidance salt that occurred to the Plaintiff on September 26, 2012 (hereinafter “third argument”).

(4) Defendant C and B shall have the Plaintiff’s seat on September 27, 2012.