1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff ordering payment is revoked.

The defendant shall make the plaintiff 19,208.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this is accepted by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. A person who is dismissed in the judgment of the court of first instance.

From the above to the fifth sentence, "MI" is called "MI", "Witness E" in the first sentence shall be read as " witness E in the court of first instance", "this court" shall be read as "the court of first instance", and "emergency" in the second to the third sentence in the fifth part in the judgment of first instance shall be read as "the patient room" and "the 6th part in the judgment of first instance" shall be read as "the 6th 4th f. 4th f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f.

4. In full view of the purport of evidence admitted as evidence No. 1 and the above, ① the Plaintiff’s symptoms of the non-defluence surgery was merged on June 14, 201, and there was no problem in the treatment process of the Defendant hospital in the process of treating the pulmonary fladrosis. The frequency of occurrence of the merger is 2-7%. ② Non-defladrative fladrosis, which was generated in spine, is good to be profrat, if the neological condition of the surgery is incomplete, the interval between the surgery is within 48 hours, and the complete 36 hours in the case of the surgery. In light of the Plaintiff’s symptoms of the non-defladrative fladrosis, the Defendant’s disease was conducted within 15 hours after the occurrence of the maladrosis, and the Defendant’s disease and delayed operation of the non-defladrative fladrosis itself, taking into account the circumstances and possibility of giving the Plaintiff’s damage.