1. The Defendants jointly and severally against the Plaintiff A at KRW 8,192,393, Plaintiff B, and C, respectively, and each of the said money.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 9, 2014, Plaintiff A was a patient who was performed an operation in accordance with Defendant E’s office e-mail by arbitrating the right side of the hospital operated by Defendant D (hereinafter “Defendant’s side hospital”), and Plaintiff B and C are the parents of Plaintiff A.

B. On June 9, 2014, Defendant E diagnosed Plaintiff A’s right-hand timber MRI as “definites for front time, for front time,” the result of the Plaintiff’s inspection conducted on the Defendant’s right-hand timber MRI as “definites for front time,” the Defendant E performed “brefinites for front time,” using the inner diameter of the arbrosis, and treated call bred bredage in order to alleviate the corrosion and pain pain in the operation division.

C. The Plaintiff A, who treated the right-hand part of the call bomb, caused an anti-sicking damage on the part of the right-hand part.

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap 1 to 8 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul 3, 4, 5, and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. In full view of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the medical professionals of the Defendant’s hospital, including the Defendant E, did not observe the direction for the use of the call broadband, by comprehensively taking into account the evidence and evidence that incurred prior to the occurrence of liability for damages, the physical examination results of the physical examination of the Head of the North Korean University Hospital of this Court, and the results of the examination of the physical examination commission for the Head of the former North Korean University Hospital, and the overall purport of the pleadings as a result of the examination and supplementary examination.

Therefore, the Defendants are liable for damages suffered by the Plaintiffs due to the aforementioned medical negligence.

① Even according to the result of the commission to supplement the Plaintiff’s body, if the Plaintiff’s skin damage was to have caused bareboat land, it would be inferred that the bareboat land was to have caused air-conditioning damage to the skin.

With respect to this, the Defendants asserted that they are known to and about Plaintiff A, and there is no evidence to acknowledge it, and the physical appraiser against Plaintiff A denies such possibility.

(2) The methods of, and directions for, the use of broadband shall be as follows:

This is.