1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant related to the parties is a doctor to operate the “Dsung Foreign Service Corps” in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “Defendant Council member”), and the Plaintiff is a person who, on September 7, 2013, received a melting and co-marization from the Defendant (hereinafter “instant surgery”) from the Defendant Council member.

B. Since 7 to 8 years prior to the instant surgery, the Plaintiff was able to take gal stability every day, and there was a history of having undergone the crypology surgery on two occasions.

C. On August 27, 2013, the Plaintiff, who was inside the Defendant Council member, was to undergo the instant surgery from the Defendant, and became aware of the Defendant’s medical history as referred to in Paragraph B above. On September 7, 2013, the medical staff of the Defendant Council re-exploited to undergo the instant surgery. (2) In relation to the instant surgery, the medical staff of the Defendant Council, without any separate title from the recording sheet of “Post-Oart” (hereinafter “the nursing record sheet after the instant surgery”), drafted a summary recording sheet of the instant surgery (hereinafter “the recording sheet of the instant case,” and combined two recording sheets.

The who is the medical professionals of the Defendant Council member cannot be confirmed because there is no signature of the author of each of the records of this case.

According to this, the process of the instant operation in Defendant Council members is as follows.

3) At around 11:20 on the same day, the Defendant’s medical team injected the Plaintiff, who entered the operating room, in one time, the 2mg of the mix (midazoam) and the Kenya (ketmine) fivem of each for the purpose of smoking and anesthesia, and injected propool (propofol 200mg per hour).

At the time, the plaintiff's oxygen map was measured with 100%.

The subject or the perspective of injecting the above drugs has not been recorded.

The defendant, from 11:50 to 11:50, performed the instant surgery against the plaintiff who was prepared to perform the surgery as above.