1. The part of the claim for confirmation of rehabilitation claims in the lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The Defendants jointly do so to the Plaintiff 33,709.

1. Basic facts

A. The relationship between the parties 1) Defendant medical corporation B (hereinafter “Defendant medical corporation”).

(2) The Plaintiff (G) was born to F Hospital on August 29, 2016 due to symptoms, such as escape, etc.

9.5. By May, the above hospital received medical treatment, and Defendant C provided medical treatment as a doctor.

B. (1) On August 29, 2016, the Plaintiff was diagnosed by Defendant C as having been given a escape test on the part of Defendant C, and received a escape test (hereinafter “instant surgery”).

(2) On August 31, 2016, the Plaintiff was hospitalized in F Hospital and received the instant surgery from Defendant C.

Defendant C determined, at the time of the instant surgery, that “the Plaintiff was in a state of depreciation in S upper ties (at the entrance of the wall where the sprink was installed, the head is unable to return to the sprink, and the sprinking is unable to return to the sprink,” and that the sprinking in the sprinking state is impossible.” The instant surgery was completed following the treatment, etc.

3 The plaintiff appealed from the date of the surgery in this case, and on September 1, 2016, the plaintiff appealed from the date of the surgery in this case, and was in a high-speed situation on September 1, 2016, and the next month on the same day.

2. At around 15:00, the patient complained of symptoms.

4) On September 3, 2016, at around 06:00, the medical professionals at F Hospital observed that the Plaintiff sworn red and snickly smelted in the distribution pipe connected to the part of the instant surgery. 5) around September 4, 2016, the Plaintiff had symptoms of high heat, pain, pain, sniffing, and respiratory difficulties. The Plaintiff continued to observe the sniffly snife.

On the same day as the radiation of the F Hospital, the test was conducted for the plaintiff X-ray, and the result of the test recommended that the CT shooting should be added.

Such a situation of the plaintiff was reported to the defendant C around 17:35 on the same day.

6. The plaintiff