1. The Defendants jointly share KRW 125,347,857 with respect to the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from June 15, 2009 to November 10, 2017.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a patient who was hospitalized in the hospital and received surgery and treatment. 2) Defendant C is the representative director of the hospital (hereinafter “Defendant’s hospital”) and Defendant B is a doctor working at the Defendant’s hospital.

B. Around March 22, 2009, the Plaintiff, while running a child, was treated as a preserved treatment at a clinic of the Embryptian, and the Plaintiff continued to receive a malutical marization of the left-hand side and a malutical mar, and applied to the Defendant’s hospital on May 14, 2009.

Defendant B observed progress while performing physical examination and simple radiation examination and performing pharmacologic treatment.

On May 20, 2009, Defendant B inspected the Pool MI on the Plaintiff, and was diagnosed with the escape certificate of the end-of-the-hand side and the left-hand side pressure No. 5 of the No. 4-5, and was hospitalized for precision inspection and treatment.

On May 21, 2009, Defendant B diagnosed the Plaintiff as the escape of the conical signboard No. 4-5 of the 4-5 in the cT test and the external heat test, and determined that the surgery is necessary.

On May 22, 2009, Defendant B performed State anesthesia and explained to the Plaintiff on May 22, 2009, that Defendant B performed the reduction of racinary disc (Percopic Eincopic Libery; hereinafter “PED”) with the consent of the Plaintiff.

However, as explained to the Plaintiff on May 22, 2009, Defendant B, unlike the Plaintiff, carried out the racre Eincopic Eincoplaty (hereinafter “PELA”), instead of the PED surgery, performed the racre Einic Einscoplatyty (hereinafter “PEA”).

hereinafter referred to as "the primary operation"

As the Plaintiff appears to have serious pains since the second day after the surgery, the Plaintiff did not have any pains in the treatment of drugs and injection.

On May 27, 2009, Defendant B confirmed that the result of the RoI test on the part of the department of the operation, and explained the necessity and method of re-operation to the Plaintiff on May 29, 2009, and explained the necessity and method of re-operation to the Plaintiff, with the consent of the Plaintiff.