1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

The defendant.

Of the grounds of the judgment of the first instance which partially accepted the judgment of the court of first instance, “1. Facts of recognition,” “a summary of the party’s assertion,” and “3. Judgment,” B.

The part of the medical negligence immediately after abortion shall be cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, and the part of the plaintiff's assertion that "the defendant has not paid considerable attention to the management and supervision of E as a nursing E," shall be added to the following: "In addition, the defendant, even though he is the agent of nursing service, has failed to perform his obligation due to the negligence of the nursing assistant, who is the agent of nursing service."

(A) The Plaintiff asserted that the medical personnel at the Defendant hospital died due to his failure to properly cope with the instant accident. However, even if examining all the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, including the evidence No. 21, which was additionally submitted at the trial, it is insufficient to recognize that there was any error in the Defendant hospital’s doctor and nurse’s measures that had been transferred to a general hospital for close inspection upon the occurrence of a defect by observe the condition of the deceased, once after the instant accident occurred, the Defendant hospital’s negligence was found.) The Defendant hospital’s negligence on the part of the nurse, who was liable for damages due to the nursing’s negligence, was a patient with extreme inconvenience due to the symptoms of serious symptoms of old symptoms. As such, E who worked as a nursing worker at the Defendant hospital, was obliged to assist the deceased’s meals, milk, salvage, bathing, bathing, mobility, etc., while waiting at the base of the movement, and in particular, to protect the deceased promptly, such as saving the deceased.

However, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in evidence Nos. 3, 8, and 10, it can be acknowledged that, in light of the purport of the arguments in the statement in evidence Nos. 3, 8, and 10, the care provider caused the deceased to be abandoned and moved to the toilet, the deceased lost the center and the deceased was faced with head in the wall fluence.

. The Deceased.