1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

Attached Form

Attached Form 2, based on the insurance contract stated in the List 1.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) the part of the judgment of the court of first instance is written as stated in paragraph (2) and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the judgment under paragraph (3). Therefore, it is acceptable to accept it as it is

2. Parts 4(b) of a dried part;

The end of this paragraph states that “A hospital was subject to the regulative conformity at the B Hospital on May 21, 2013” means that “B hospital received the fluoral conformity for the right 4,5 fluorical area on May 21, 2013, and received the fluoral conformity on July 5, 2013.”

Type 4 E.

According to the results of the fact-finding with respect to the head of the East University Hospital of the court of the first instance, the defendant's payment rate of 10% due to the fact-finding with respect to the head of the East University Hospital of the same court of the first instance falls under the above (as a result of the fact-finding with respect to the head of the East University Hospital of the same court of the same court of the first instance, the defendant constitutes 5% due to the above (as a part of the sale disability classification table), and the hand-off table falls under the above (as a part of the sale disability classification table), and the payment rate of 5% corresponding to the above (as a part of the disability classification table), and the right-hand 2-5% and the payment rate of 5% corresponding to the above (as a part of the disability classification table). The sum of the payment rate falls under 35% (as a result of the fact-finding with respect to the head of the Si University Hospital of the same court of the first instance, in principle, combined with the payment rate of the remaining disability).

Each "40% of the payment rate" in the 5th and 5th parallels shall be "35% of the payment rate", "40 million won" in the 5th parallels shall be "35 million won", and "not later than June 14, 2016, which is the date of the ruling of this case" in the 6th parallels shall be deemed reasonable for the plaintiff to dispute as to the existence or scope of the obligation."

No. 18 of the fifth side, "the results of the fact-finding inquiry, evaluation and supplementation request to the head of the East University Hospital" shall be followed by "the results of the fact-finding inquiry, supplementation and supplementation request to the head of the East University Hospital" in the first instance court.

3.