1.Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the judgment of the first instance, including the claims of plaintiffs A, C, and D expanded in the trial of the trial, are as follows:

Basic Facts

The defendant is a doctor in charge of the plaintiffs' medical treatment while operating G Council members located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F (hereinafter referred to as "Defendant hospital"), and the plaintiffs are those who received gallebane surgery from the defendant.

On September 22, 2008, the plaintiff A, after the implementation of the eyebag operation and the procedure at the defendant hospital, was observed on Sep. 22, 2008, the plaintiff A, who was the defendant at the defendant hospital, had a prudental typosis in the defendant hospital. The plaintiff A diagnosed the plaintiff A's eye in the bruptic typology, the symptoms of the bruptic typosis, the expansion of the blood transfusion, and the increase in the number of blood transfusions.

Accordingly, the defendant recommended the plaintiff A to perform the eyebag operation of the dynasium total dynasium, and conducted the eyebag operation on September 27, 2008.

(1) On June 30, 2009, after the eyebag operation, Plaintiff A performed cryptive and re-regrative surgery on the side of the left part of the Plaintiff A on June 30, 2009, with a view to rhythrizing rhesion, and the Defendant performed rhyrative surgery on July 6, 2009, with a view to the removal of a rearctative chest system inside and outside part of the left part, and the removal, transplant, transplant, transplant, and temporary ryrative transplantation.

(2) On July 22, 2009, the Defendant confirmed the Plaintiff’s visual condition of the Plaintiff A, and subsequently, the inside and outside side of the shore improved both the transplant and the both sides, and the outside side decided to perform pharmacologic treatment and observe the progress. On August 1, 2009, the Defendant tried to explain the necessity of the transplant surgery and to perform the surgery. However, on August 7, 2009, the Defendant suspended the surgery once it shown the favorable aspects, such as the progress of the surgery of the outside side of the shore, as a result of the diagnosis.

Plaintiff

A complaining of A’s pain on August 24, 2009, and applied to the Defendant Hospital. The Defendant discovered that the dysium’s dysium worse and the dysium’s dysium dysium dysium dysium dysium dysium dysium dysium dysium dysium and expanded the parts of the dysium cell loss dysium.