1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's claim extended by the appellate court is dismissed.

3. Filing an appeal;

1. The reasons for the judgment of the appellate court accepting the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows, and the plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff is liable for delay of performance and incomplete performance pursuant to Article 756 of the Civil Code or medical contract to the defendant.

(See the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding a new argument and a judgment thereon based on the Plaintiff’s written brief dated June 20, 2020 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Da320, Jun. 20, 201).

The fifth [based on recognition] of the first instance court’s fifth [the result of the commission of the appraisal of medical records to the appraiser G] shall be deemed as “the result of the commission of the appraisal of medical records to the head of the first instance court’s first instance court’s first instance court’s first instance court’s first instance court’s first instance court’s first instance court’s first instance court’s first instance court’s first instance court’s first instance court’s second instance court’s second instance court’s second instance court’s second instance court’s second instance

Then, the first instance court’s 9th 7th 7 and 8th , “The epinephri was given first aid by administering Epine,” and the first instance court’s 9th 7th 7th 7th 7th “In light of the fact that according to the result of the expert examination of the medical records entrusted to the chief of the J Hospital of the appellate court, the appraiser presented his opinion that it is necessary to first implement the heart in the cardiopulmonary resuscitation, etc., the appraiser’s opinion that the Defendant hospital should first implement the heart in the cardiopulmonary resuscitation, etc., is difficult to deem that there was a negligence of delaying Epine in administering the Epine in the course of administering the Epine.”

After the nineth nineth day of the judgment of the first instance, "the plaintiff did not measure the oxygen level after the plaintiff's shock is found by medical personnel of the defendant hospital."

Although it is alleged to the effect that there was negligence of delaying the core function by using cardio-accidentor motive, chest pressure, etc., it is also argued to the effect that there was a delay in recovering the core function. However, after the shock of the medical team of the Defendant hospital, the Defendant provided the Plaintiff with an oxygen immediately after the shock, and carried out the heart, ampamping and ampuging with the heart and ampering.