1. The Defendant’s KRW 15,053,982 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from May 29, 2015 to August 22, 2017, and the following.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is the medical foundation that operates a hospital in Gyeongnam-si, Gyeongnam-si, and the Plaintiff is a person who received a diagnosis of wing infection at the Defendant hospital and received a wing-out wing-si.

B. On May 28, 2015, the Plaintiff received gate-savings using ducts under the house of the doctor E affiliated with the Defendant Hospital. The Plaintiff’s ductal ductal ductal ductal ductal ductal ducts the lower part of the Plaintiff’s ductal ductal ductal ducts into ductal ductal ducts, inserting the ductal ducts into ductal ducts, and saving the ductal ducts which are absent from the operation of the equipment. The method of this operation is written, the period of recovery is short,

C. As above, the Plaintiff complained of heavy clothes after receiving the gate chilling surgery. After undergoing various inspections at the Defendant hospital, the Plaintiff was hospitalized on June 3, 2015 by transferring it to the Busan Busan Busan Busan Hospital according to the opinion of the power source of the university hospital, and on June 15, 2015, the Plaintiff was discharged on June 26, 2015 after receiving treatment in accordance with the opinion of damage to the gate at the Busan Busan Busan Busan Hospital (the end of the gate chilling surgery conducted at the time of the gate chilling chilling chilling chilling chilling chilling and the factory).

According to the result of this court's inquiry into the Korean Medical Association, the defendant hospital's house held that "the defendant hospital's house was damaged by clip by putting the plaintiff's cBD (CBD) in CBD operation under the above in CBD, and it is not possible to think that the possibility of damage to clip cutting in addition to the harm of personality is different."

[Based on recognition] Gap evidence 1-11, Eul evidence 1-4, fact-finding with respect to the Korean Medical Association of this Court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. According to the above facts, the Plaintiff’s damage to the Plaintiff’s general fences is attributable to the Defendant’s negligence, as it was caused by the degradation while receiving the instant re-written re-written gate from the Defendant’s doctor E on May 28, 2015.