1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

The reasoning of the court's explanation of this case is as follows, except where the plaintiff added the judgment of the argument added to the trial court, and therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance.

Judgment on the argument that the plaintiff added in the trial

A. 1) A person who signed the Plaintiff’s agreement of hospitalization pursuant to the Plaintiff’s assertion that the principal obligation did not exist. Since the Plaintiff did not agree to medical expenses, D’s obligation of medical expenses is not established. If the Plaintiff jointly and severally guaranteed D’s obligation of medical expenses not constituted as above, the Plaintiff’s joint and several liability is not established depending on the subsidiary nature. 2) In a case where a judgment patient requests a doctor or a medical institution to provide medical treatment, and a medical person starts medical treatment in compliance with the request, a medical contract is established between the medical person and the patient.

In accordance with a medical contract, a medical person shall bear the obligation to diagnose and treat patients by using all medical knowledge and medical technology for the treatment, etc. of a disease, and the patient shall bear the obligation to pay remuneration therefor.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2009Da17417 Decided May 21, 2009). (See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2009Da17417 Decided May 21, 2009). (A) examining the overall purport of the pleadings as to the evidence No. 4 (inception record and progress of hospitalization), D appears to have been aware at the time of the duration of hospitalization, and it should be deemed that D

Therefore, D can be said to bear the obligation of medical expenses as a party to a medical contract, and even if D had an unknown state during the period of hospitalization, D was in a state of being hospitalized.

Even as seen below, since the obligation for medical expenses can be established as a legal obligation, the principal obligation of D is effective, and the Plaintiff’s obligation of joint and several sureties is also valid.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff.