1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

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

purport, purport, and.

1. Basic facts

A. On 192, the Plaintiff received two occasions a scambling surgery on both sides due to pregnancy outside the womb (hereinafter “first surgery”).

B. On July 4, 1996, the Plaintiff received king surgery (hereinafter “Class 2 surgery”) from the medical staff of Defendant B, etc. (hereinafter “Defendant B, etc.”) at the Daegu Manistegian Hospital (hereinafter “Defendant Corporation”) affiliated with the Daegu Manistegian (hereinafter “Defendant Corporation”).

C. On February 18, 2014, the Plaintiff undergone an inspection on the early ion of the clothes at the National Assembly members in C, and during that process, approximately 6 cm in diameter was discovered from the horse group of the president and the head of the franchisium located in the franchis. D.

On March 6, 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) hospitalized in the Glangbuk-do University Hospital and re-exploited the ring leader; and (b) undergone an operation to remove the president or the head of a flapinging with the ring leader and the ring leader on the following day (hereinafter “third operation”).

E. The head of the dyp removed through the third operation was found to be the head of the organizational inspection (hereinafter “instant head”).

[Ground of recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence 3-1, 2, Gap evidence 4, Gap evidence 5-1, 2, Gap evidence 6-1, 6-4, each fact inquiry conducted by the court of first instance and the court of first instance, the results of the fact inquiry conducted on the director of Youngnam University Hospital in the court of first instance, the results of commissioning the director of Youngnam University Hospital in the court of first instance with the physical examination entrusted to the director of Youngnam University Hospital in the court of first instance, the results of entrusting the director of the Association

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) was performed on July 4, 1996 and had not undergone the surgery before undergoing the 3rd surgery for the removal of the instant case. Moreover, the location at which the instant business was discovered is adjacent to the 2nd surgery (half half part) rather than the 1st surgery. Therefore, Defendant B, etc., while performing the 2nd surgery, left the instant business within the Plaintiff’s her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her part while performing the her her her her her her her her her her her her her shes.2) In the process of the 2nd surgery.