1. The Defendant’s KRW 3,981,021 as well as the Plaintiff’s KRW 5% per annum from May 18, 2016 to April 11, 2019, and the following.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 18, 2016, the Plaintiff was at the C Hospital operated by the Defendant (hereinafter “Defendant Hospital”) and was at the bottom of the water surface with a view to the recovery, and was at the hospital be on the fall prevention for the sake of the recovery.

B. During that, the Plaintiff suffered injuries, such as electric power failure, heat failure, and spathing, etc., which are far away from the hospital bed, while the consciousness was not completely shouldered.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant accident”). Accordingly, the Defendant Hospital provided the Plaintiff with the medical treatment of the credit and the treatment of the two toothpasia on the part of the Plaintiff due to the instant accident.

C. On the other hand, the inland border is a method of internal vision testing that leads to the fluorization of the degree of reaction by oral order or shaking by using chemicals to conduct the internal border test in the state of waters and brings about the loss of memory after completion of the test.

At this time, strokes used as a petition shall begin with the effect of 1 to 2 minutes after the administration, reaching the highest effect between 3 to 5 minutes, and the effect shall continue from 15 minutes to 2 to 30 minutes.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including paper numbers), the purport of whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Since the Plaintiff’s Defendant Hospital caused the instant accident by negligence that did not take protective measures after conducting the WIG test, the Plaintiff should compensate the Plaintiff for the damages of KRW 5,200,000 for future treatment costs (3,600,000 for 1,600,000 for ney treatment and Bosyon treatment) and KRW 25,00 for consolation money (3,60,000 for ney treatment and Boson treatment).

B. As the background of the Defendant’s accident is unclear, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant hospital’s negligence.

3. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. According to the above facts of recognition of the occurrence of liability, the Plaintiff’s medical team at the Defendant Hospital was embarrasing due to the administration of the said system.