1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiffs falling under the funds ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

Facts of recognition

The plaintiff A (hereinafter referred to as the "Plaintiff") is a patient who was administered by G Hospital operated by the defendant corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "Defendant Hospital") and shows symptoms caused by neutal damage. The plaintiff B is his wife, the plaintiff C, and D are his children.

Defendant E is the director of the Plaintiff and the director of the Defendant hospital who performed the surgery for the removal of the above species.

내원 경위 원고는 2006. 12. 1.경 4~5년 전부터 우측 겨드랑이(액와부, 腋窩部)에 작은 혹이 만져지더니 한 달 전부터는 우측 팔이 저리는 증세를 보인다고 호소하며 피고 병원 일반외과에 내원하였다.

The medical personnel of the Defendant Hospital had, as a result of the first wave test, the Plaintiff suspected of the neogenic umor, and the Defendant E had been charged with the neogenic umor, and the Defendant E requested each of the relevant medical departments to conduct a field test and CT test on the part of the Plaintiff.

On December 13, 2006, the Plaintiff undergone a transition test in the rehabilitation department, and all of the results of the spathal ionology test of the right upper area and the spathal neyal field test of the right upper area, and it was confirmed that the exercise and spathal function are all normal since the spathal typology test of the right upper area was not observed as a result of the spathal field test of the right upper area.

On December 15, 2006, the plaintiff was subject to CT inspection on the right shoulder, and approximately 3.4 x 1.7 x 2.1 cm x 1.7 x 1 cm x 2.1 cm fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluornaves on the right shoulder.

On January 2, 2007, the Plaintiff was hospitalized in the Defendant Hospital, and was hospitalized in the Defendant Hospital on January 5, 2007. On January 5, 2007, under Defendant E’s house, to remove the wale of the right part and the right part (hereinafter “instant surgery”).

Defendant E’s opinion is different from the opinion of the above CT inspection, because Defendant E has cut off the inner part of the fry with the frying of the fry, and exposed to the fry and the milching of the fry by exposing the fry.