1. The Defendant’s KRW 22,089,149 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from September 13, 2014 to October 12, 2017, and the following.

1. Basic facts

A. The defendant is a person who works in a hospital as a medical specialist, and the plaintiff is a person who had been performed by the defendant in a vertical line (CTS) from the defendant.

B. (1) On September 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) 2014, around September 1, 2014, she went to C Hospital by singing the symptoms of the left hand, siums, scarvings, and scarvings; (b) was diagnosed on September 11, 2014, and was solicited by the Defendant to undergo an operation; (c) on September 13, 2014, the Plaintiff was hospitalized to C Hospital for an operation; and (d) was hospitalized from the Defendant to undergo an operation by scarcity scarcitys using scars (A/S).

From September 14, 2014, after the surgery, the Plaintiff complained of the left hand third, the second hand, and the fourth hand, which are not the part of the surgery.

3. After discharge on September 15, 2014, the Plaintiff received outpatient treatment from the Plaintiff until September 29, 2014. On September 29, 2014, the Defendant issued a written opinion to the effect that “the Plaintiff, on September 29, 2014, claimed for the de facto loss following the surgery, the fourth, and the fifth son’s loss, and the fifth son’s loss, are doubtful.”

4) From September 30, 2014, the Plaintiff was diagnosed with psychotropic damage in a hospital, and was under treatment by transferring the Plaintiff to a hospital at the ordinary university on February 24, 2015. The Plaintiff is currently asserting symptoms, such as the pressure of left loss, the pressure of the third, third and third fingers, and the reduction of sense, etc. [Grounds for recognition] There is no dispute. The Plaintiff’s evidence Nos. 1 to 4 (including the number of pages), and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. In a case where a doctor’s medical practice becomes a tort in the course of violation of the duty of care, there should be causation between negligence in medical practice and the occurrence of damage as in general, as in the case of tort. The burden of proof is borne by the patient, but medical practice is not an expert in the field requiring highly professional knowledge.