1. The Defendants jointly share KRW 5,000,000 with respect to the Plaintiff and the period from January 14, 2015 to July 19, 2018.

1. Basic facts

A. A. Around December 2014, the Plaintiff entered the Defendant B Medical Center (hereinafter “Defendant B Medical Center”) and expressed his opinion that the Plaintiff had a kidne to extend the right from Defendant C to the right, and decided to conduct a ductal surgery for removal.

B. Around January 13, 2015, Defendant C implemented kidney kidney kidy kidy, and the Plaintiff moved from sick rooms on January 13, 2015 to an operation room on a seven-hour basis, and returned to sick rooms again on the same day.

C. After the Plaintiff’s general anesthesia, the Defendant C decided to convert the Plaintiff’s body into a ductal surgery while intending to remove the right-hand kidney site through a ductal surgery. The Defendant C opened the Plaintiff’s body together with the general outside of the Defendant hospital’s general ductal surgery, removed the Plaintiff’s absence from the right-hand kidney, and implemented a ductal surgery as to the rapid exploitation of the kidne-consium performance department.

(hereinafter “instant surgery”). D.

After the surgery of this case, the plaintiff was diagnosed as having damaged the left-hand Balves, and was given medical treatment to the left-hand arms for a considerable period of time.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 (including the number of branch offices), Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Gap evidence Nos. 4 video, the result of the commission of each medical record appraisal to the head of the hospital in this court, and the head of the Gyeongbuk University Hospital, the purport of the whole pleadings, as a whole.

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff, in violation of the duty of care in the medical treatment of Defendant C, heard the opinions that Defendant C had a kidney, and decided to conduct an operation by ductals.

In the case of a kidne, the method is more appropriate than the lavement surgery or the lavement surgery, and the laver laver laver laver laver laver laver laver laver laver laver laver laver laver

However, the defendant C did not discover a new e-consecte in the initial prosecutor, and explain to the plaintiff or the plaintiff's consent on the ground that the e-consecte and the e-consecte in the operation of the e-consecte.