1. The defendant's appeal is all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

The purport of the claim and the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing the reasoning of the judgment is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing the reasoning of the judgment from “1. Basic Facts” to “10.” No. 10th 10th 10th 2nd 2nd 10th 2nd 2nd 2nd 3rd 2nd 2nd

2. The main part of the appeal [1. The facts under the foundation of the judgment below are not disputed between the parties, or are recognized by Gap's evidence Nos. 1-3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 14, 16-20, Eul's evidence No. 13, Eul's evidence, and Eul's evidence No. 13, the results of physical appraisal entrusted to the president of the G hospital of the first instance court, and the results of factual inquiry.

A. The parties are medical corporations that operate the F Hospital located in Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government N (hereinafter “Defendant Hospital”), and the Plaintiff A is a patient who underwent surgery at the Defendant Hospital.

Plaintiff

B is the spouse of the Plaintiff A, and the Plaintiff C and D are the children of the Plaintiff.

B. On February 5, 2015, Plaintiff A complained of the following: (a) around 10:12, 2015: (b) Plaintiff A was placed in the Defendant Hospital: (c) the Plaintiff was placed in the Defendant Hospital: (a) the Plaintiff was placed in a state of being accumulated in a house for more than one year with the pains, shoulders, and necks of necks; and (b) the Plaintiff was provided out of a medical doctor’s surgery.

O decided to conduct the MIM inspection and surgery against the plaintiff A, and the plaintiff A was hospitalized in the defendant hospital on the same day.

2) On February 5, 2015, the medical personnel of the Defendant Hospital obtained the Plaintiff’s “A written consent to fix vertebrate after vertebrate” from the Plaintiff. On February 6, 2015, the next day, the medical personnel of the Defendant Hospital implemented the Plaintiff’s instant surgery (hereinafter referred to as “instant surgery”) on February 6, 2015, 4-5 back to the left-hand side of the 4-5 trend using artificial apparatus, e.g., e., e., e., e., e., e., g. c., e., c., e., c., e., c., e., e. c., e., e. c., e., e., c., e., e., e., c

3) From February 7, 2015, the day after the instant surgery, Plaintiff A complained against the left-hand side and the left-hand left-hand side symptoms, and the medical professionals of the Defendant Hospital were the Plaintiff A.