1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The plaintiff was from April 15, 2013 to May 13, 2013.

1. The reasons stated in this part are as follows, and this part of the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

At the bottom of the fourth and fifth level, the results of the request for physical examination to the Chief of the Seoul National University Hospital and the fact inquiry, the results of the request for physical examination to the Chief of the Korean Medical Association, the results of physical examination to the Chief of the court of first instance and the results of fact inquiry, and the results of the request for medical examination to the Chief of the Korean Medical Association of the court of first instance.

2. The reasons why the court's explanation in this part is identical to the part concerning "2. Party's assertion" in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. Determination as to the existence of negligence in medical treatment

A. The reasoning for this part of this Court’s determination on the excessive medical claim is as follows, since the part 6, 7, and 7, 3 among the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that for the judgment of the court of first instance, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

Part 6. 14 and 17. Each of the results of the request for the appraisal of medical records to the chief of the Korean Medical Association of the Korean Medical Doctor Association of the first instance court shall be in violation of the Act on the Results of Entrustment of the Evaluation of Medical Records to the chief

B. The reasoning for this part of the court’s reasoning is as follows, on the part of this part, that the omission in the process of the instant surgery occurred, i.e., a judgment on the negligence in the process of the surgery. The reasoning for this part of the court’s reasoning is as follows: (a) the part of the reply on the result of the commission of the examination and treatment to the president of the Korea Medical Association of the first instance, i.e., the result of the commission of the examination and treatment to the president of the Korea Medical Association of the 10th trial, i.e., the result of the commission of the examination and treatment to the president of the Korea Medical Association of the first instance trial, ii) is as follows.