1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against Plaintiff C regarding the money ordered to be paid additionally is revoked.

1. With respect to the underlying facts and this part of the occurrence of liability for damages, the reasons stated by this court are as follows: (a) the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance, stating “1. Basic Facts” and “2. The grounds of appeal are as follows: (b) the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning the occurrence of liability for damages (excluding the part concerning the limitation on liability for damages)” and the part concerning “2.” (b) from 19 to 9.20, respectively; and (c) thus,

2. Additional determination as to the occurrence of liability for damages, as stated in the evidence No. 2-1, No. 2, No. 1-8, and No. 1-8, and as a result of the request for the examination of medical records to the head of the roadside Hospital by the first instance court for the medical corporation, the court of the first instance can be seen as having violated the duty of care of the medical staff of the Defendant Hospital, in full view of the following circumstances: (a) the fact-finding results with respect to the head of the roadside Hospital by the medical corporation, and the overall purport of the arguments; (b)

① In the case of Plaintiff C, it was difficult for Plaintiff C to perform surgery because the cryposis cryposis spreads more widely than ordinary patients, and there was a high possibility that re-cryption may occur.

(A) The Defendant: (a) had determined the method of operation, operation location, etc. after careful consideration of the Plaintiff C’s condition; (b) there is no circumstance to deem that the Defendant had taken such adequate consideration and measures, even though the medical personnel performing the operation had determined the method of operation, operation location, etc. in a prudent manner by taking into account the Plaintiff C’s condition.

(A) The records of the operation against Plaintiff C are as follows: (a) all of the opinions before and after the operation with Plaintiff C were written only “infiniteness and finite finite finite finite finite finite finite finite finite finite finites; and (b) the detailed state of Plaintiff C was not written. Moreover, the records of the operation did not state what reasons it would have been selected;