1. On the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant),

A. The Korea Veterans Welfare and Healthcare Corporation (Counterclaim Plaintiff) KRW 227,35,331 and KRW 10,000.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

Basic Facts

The defendant Corporation is a public corporation that operates the Central Veterans Hospital located in Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter referred to as the "Defendant Hospital"), and the defendant B is a doctor of the defendant hospital affiliated with the defendant hospital.

The plaintiff (D) is a patient who was admitted to the defendant hospital on December 17, 2012 and was performed by the defendant B on December 28, 2012.

On October 22, 2012, the Plaintiff complained of pain on the part of the Plaintiff’s operation and the process of the operation decision was conducted by the Defendant Hospital on the day of the operation. As a result of the examination, the Plaintiff was subject to pharmacologic on October 27, 2012 after the Defendant Hospital’s observation of eculatory spine, and was subject to the eculation test. As a result of the examination, the Defendant Hospital was hospitalized at the Defendant Hospital on December 17, 2012. As a result of the examination, the Plaintiff was hospitalized at the Defendant Hospital on December 17, 2012.

At the time of hospitalization, the plaintiff's consciousness was clear, and it was possible to move along, but there was an appeal for sporadic pain on the land and the left-hand bridge, and the sporadic history was all the 5th class.

After being hospitalized, the Plaintiff appealed to the medical personnel of the Defendant Hospital, the right hand’s pain, the right shoulder’s pain, and the medical personnel of the Defendant Hospital including the Defendant B (hereinafter “medical personnel”). On December 21, 2012, the medical personnel of the Defendant Hospital (hereinafter “the medical personnel”) conducted the MOI test against the Plaintiff on December 21, 2012. As a result of the examination, the Plaintiff observed the following: (a) the MOI test on the following: (b) the post-7 conical tyradism; (c) the inter-party 3-7 conical typoradism; (d) the inter-party 4-5 conical tynadism; (c) the change in the intensity of the inter-party cirrosis; (d) the multi-party clu

Accordingly, the medical personnel of the Defendant Hospital recommended the Plaintiff to preferentially conduct the climatic surgery prior to the climatic surgery.

Defendant B after the surgery and surgery against the Plaintiff.