1.The judgment of the first instance, including the claims extended in the trial, shall be modified as follows:

The defendant is the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The relationship between the parties 1) Plaintiff C is the mother of Plaintiff A, and the Plaintiffs are permanent residents of the United States. 2) The Defendant is a corporation operating G Hospital (hereinafter “Defendant Hospital”).

B. Plaintiff A’s surgery and its process 1) Plaintiff A’s surgery from around 07:45 to 14:55 on December 2, 2010, for the purpose of treating “malopical fluoral fluoral fluoring accompanied by the fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral flus

(2) After the instant surgery, the Defendant hospital observed the progress of the Plaintiff A in a general hospital, not a serious patient room, and took measures, such as detailed lusium (e.g., the body level with the degree of 30 degrees) in order to maintain the atmosphere, the lusium 5-liter dose and oxygen lusium, the lusium 5-liter dose and oxygen lusium, the lusium medication in a water amount, the lusium, the lusium, the lusium, the lusium inco, and the lusium lusium in order to maintain the atmosphere.

3) From 22:00 on December 2, 2010, the date of the instant operation, Plaintiff A complained of the difficulty in respiratory and surface of the water. Accordingly, the medical personnel of the Defendant Hospital determined that the Plaintiff was crynizing oxygen, and that the Plaintiff was bread through coco engine tubes. On the same day, around 23:00 on December 3, 2010, Plaintiff A complained of the Plaintiff that the guardian was cryn and difficult to cryn the skin at around 00:20 on December 3, 2010, and the nurse directly confirmed that the nurse flow to cryn.

After December 3, 2010, the plaintiff complained of the inconvenience that the plaintiff A again, and around 04:30 on the same day, the plaintiff suffered from the respiratory part.

5) From 04:40 to 10 minutes after the lapse of 10 minutes, at around 04:50, the Defendant hospital’s doctor H administered the A-in-way path with first aid at around 04:50, but did not have any reaction. Around 05:0, the Defendant hospital used the A-in-service artificial absorption equipment (ample, ampububa).