1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing the reasoning of the judgment is as follows: (a) the court of first instance citing the two-half and eight-half and the five-half and six-six (6) of the judgment citing “inward”; and (b) the Plaintiff’s additional assertion by the court of first instance citing the reasoning of the judgment citing the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance excluding the addition of the judgment as set forth in paragraph (2) below 2. Thus, the court

2. Additional determination

A. The plaintiff asserts that not only the fin-cin-cin-cin-cin-cin-cin-cin-cin-cin-cin-cin-cin-cin in-cin-cin-cin-cin-cin-cin-cin-cin-cin-cin-c

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings as a result of the request for the examination of the medical records against Eul evidence No. 1 and E Hospital Head of the first instance court, it can be acknowledged that the plaintiff had been infected by metal material, but the plaintiff had been properly removed from Fin which was inserted into the left-hand hand hand on June 24, 2009. The evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone was found on the part of the defendant hospital before the plaintiff filed a claim for a finish on the left-hand hand and the upper part of the body.

It is not sufficient to recognize that the aggregate oil of the left-hand walone has occurred due to the infections in the insertion or sectw, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

B. The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff did not perform his duty of guidance on the necessity of rehabilitation treatment and rehabilitation treatment for the part of the medical personnel, thereby resulting in the Plaintiff’s physical restriction, etc. on the left-hand hand-hand hand-hand hand-hand hand-hand hand-on, etc.

In full view of the purport of the entire arguments as a result of the request for the examination of medical records to the head of the court of first instance and the E Hospital Head of the court of first instance, upon C’s request, the Defendant hospital’s rehabilitation medical personnel shall be the Plaintiff on May 26, 2009, which is subsequent to the framework of each of the instant operations.