1. The Defendants jointly share the Plaintiff with KRW 15 million and with respect thereto, 5% per annum from February 22, 2018 to June 22, 2018.

1. Basic facts

A. Defendant B operates E Hospital in Gyeyang-gu Incheon, and Defendant C is a doctor employed by Defendant B and working at the above E Hospital.

The plaintiff has filled up 25 years prior to 25 years ago a component imprisonent foreign substance into both sides.

B. On May 9, 2016, when the Plaintiff notified Defendant C of the circumstance that he/she injected foreign substances into both banks for a long time, the Plaintiff received from Defendant C the breathal malute of both banks in the above E Hospital (hereinafter “instant sex surgery”).

After receiving the instant sex surgery, the Plaintiff began to tamp the right walthal, and received the restoration of the right walthal from Defendant C on June 24, 2016.

The plaintiff is now in a state where the right walk is destroyed and lost, and approximately 6 cm of the length on the right walk, and approximately 4 cm of the right walm length on the left walk.

C. According to the results of the physical examination of this case, ① The part on the right-hand liquid part is unlikely to be reconstructed even after the surgery due to the blood behavior caused by foreign substances within the Plaintiff’s fluids, and such reflectors, even if they were to perform the surgery, are to perform the surgery.

Even if it is expected that the degree of reflect will remain.

[Ground for recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 4, Eul 1 through 3 (including each number, if any); hereinafter the same shall apply)

(i)each description or image of this Court, the result of the commission of physical examinations to Tol University Non-Tol University by this Court, the purport of the entire pleadings;

2. Summary of the parties’ assertion

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion (1) Defendant C’s medical malpractice did not take appropriate measures to prevent the collapse of this case during the course of performing the instant sex surgery, even though the Plaintiff’s consultation prior to the implementation of the instant sex surgery was injection of foreign substances on both sides of the Plaintiff.