1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is a legal entity operating C Hospital (hereinafter “Defendant Hospital”), and the Plaintiff is a person who received medical treatment from Burinology and doctor E belonging to the Defendant Hospital on several occasions between April 20, 201 and July 5, 2016.

B. On April 20, 201, the Plaintiff filed for the first time with Defendant Hospital, complaining of blood urology, etc., which was not accompanied by the pain that began before April 3, 2011. The medical personnel at Defendant Hospital conducted urine urine tests, urine urology tests, blood urine-cell tests, and arb X-ray tests against the Plaintiff, but confirmed that there was no particular urine urine urine.

C. On April 22, 2011, the medical personnel of the Defendant Hospital stated the result of the Dogbu CT (computer shooting; hereinafter the same shall apply) examination that was conducted against the Plaintiff as “kidy and brud-proof boom.”

On June 25, 2011, the medical personnel of the Defendant Hospital confirmed that there was no particular abnormal opinion in the outcome of urine urine dysology test conducted while tracking the Plaintiff and the urine urine cell pathology test conducted by the Plaintiff.

E. After that, the Plaintiff complained of the fact that the Plaintiff was not within the Defendant Hospital on January 27, 2015 that the symptoms of urology began again on the part of the Defendant Hospital for a period of up to three years and seven months, and had the Defendant Hospital re-entered to the Defendant Hospital, and confirmed that there was no particular abnormal check at this time. The presumption diagnosis statement given to the Plaintiff was “specific urology therapy” of the Plaintiff.

F. On January 29, 2015, the medical personnel of the Defendant Hospital stated “kidne and luminous nursing” as the result of the Madne-CT inspection conducted against the Plaintiff.

G. On July 5, 2016, the Plaintiff complained of symptoms that the Plaintiff did not go to the Defendant Hospital for a period of up to one year and five months in another city, stating that “in light of the urine’s independence and urine’s urine, there is a pain where the urine reported urine and urine urine urology.”