1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to Plaintiff A for KRW 30,038,60, and KRW 1,500,000 to Plaintiff B and each of them on April 1, 2017.

1. Basic facts

A. The party-related Plaintiff A is a person who was administered an internal fluorary fluor removal from Defendant C Medical Center (hereinafter “Defendant hospital”) by Defendant D, the head of the fire engine and the head of the division, and Plaintiff B is his wife.

B. On August 8, 2016, Plaintiff A was diagnosed as having been absent from a general meeting in E, and was hospitalized in Defendant Hospital on August 16, 2016. (2) On August 17, 2016, Defendant D, a doctor inside Defendant Hospital, was hospitalized in Defendant Hospital. (3) On August 17, 2016, Defendant D, a doctor inside Defendant Hospital, opened the head-of-the-head-head-head-head-head-head-head-head-head-head-head-head-head-head-general-general-general-general-general-general-general-general-general-general-general-general-general-general-general-general-general-general-general-general-general-general-general-general-general-general-general-general-general-general-general-general-general-general-general-general-general-general-general-general-general-general-public-general-general-general-general-general-general-general-general-general-general-public-general-general-general-general-general-general-general-general-public.

3) Upon completion of the first operation, Plaintiff A appealed to 16:10 sick rooms on August 17, 2016, and then appealed to her uniforms. 4) Defendant D instructed Defendant D to administer an advanced control over her uniforms from August 17, 2016 to 06:00 the following day. On August 18, 2016, Plaintiff A reported the result of the first operation, and requested cooperation with the outside, based on the judgment that there is a high possibility of her uniforms infection caused by dypitis or by sacheon sacheon mar.

4) On August 18, 2016, Defendant Hospital’s outside medical professionals (F) and medical professionals (hereinafter “the second surgery”) are as follows: (a) with respect to the acute dysium infection of Plaintiff A on August 13:29, 2016 (hereinafter “the second surgery”).

(5) The medical record of the Defendant Hospital was carried out. The Defendant Hospital had been aware of the leakage and extraction of salivitis in the second operation dog, and of salivation of salmatitis, but it could be found that there was a clear astronomical salmatism.