1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. From July 2013 to September 2013, the Plaintiff received medical treatment and surgery at a hospital located in the jurisdiction of the Defendant. During that process, the Plaintiff filed a claim for medical expenses on the following grounds: “(i) where B hospital did not conduct a 17-time photographing test for the Plaintiff, and claimed expenses for the Plaintiff; even if the Plaintiff actually conducted a 17-time photographing test, it did not record it in the medical records and nursing register; (ii) the Plaintiff violated the Medical Service Act by failing to record the details of MOI photographing in the medical records and nursing register; (iii) the Plaintiff was in violation of the Medical Service Act; and (iv) there was no medical record that was taken against the Plaintiff; and (iv) the Plaintiff did not conduct the MOI’s MaI test but did not conduct the MaI test at the beginning of the second time; and (v) the above hospital claimed medical expenses on the part of the Plaintiff; and thus, (v) if the medical device itself was implemented even without the medical device itself, it could request the Defendant to take measures against the Defendant.”

B. As a result of checking the Plaintiff’s above civil petition, the Defendant is not in violation of the Medical Service Act since the Plaintiff’s 17-time photographs claimed by B were actually conducted, and even if the details were omitted in the medical records, they were recorded in the place of video medicine. ② The details and opinions of the MOI’s inspection against the Plaintiff were recorded in the place of video medicine. Therefore, it is not a violation of the Medical Service Act. ③ Although the MOI’s MOI reading records against the Plaintiff were omitted in the place of video medicine, they cannot be viewed as a violation of the Medical Service Act because they were omitted in the place of video medicine, but the MOI’s PO reading results were recorded in the medical records, and thus, they cannot be seen as having been recorded in the medical records.