1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) against the instant principal lawsuit and counterclaim are dismissed.

2. The appeal costs.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the defendant's supplementary or supplementary determination as to the part concerning which the defendant contests as the grounds for appeal as follows. Thus, it shall be cited as it is by the main sentence of Article 420

2. Additional and supplementary judgments

A. The Plaintiffs asserted that the instant accident occurred outside the scope of a caregiver’s work, and that the instant treatment procedure cannot be seen as the scope of caregiver’s work, and thus, it is not responsible as it was caused by an act unrelated to the work.

The following circumstances, which are acknowledged as comprehensively considering the purport of the entire argument in Eul evidence Nos. 2, 4, 5, and 8, namely, that the defendant appears to have no reason to get off from the beds during physical treatment, and that the plaintiff himself was responsible for recognizing that the plaintiff was an accident caused by a physical treatment (D same applies). According to the Enforcement Rule of the Long-Term Care Protection Act for the Aged Act, "the defendant shows that "the plaintiff was responsible for returning home or her home or her home or her home or her home or her home or her home or her home or her home or her home or her home or her home or her home or her home or her home or her home or her home or her home or her home or her home or her home or her home or her home or her home or her home, as alleged by the plaintiffs (attached Form 12), it is reasonable to view that the defendant's home or her home or her home is completely exempted from the duty of care to protect his or her home or her home.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is.