1. The judgment of the first instance court, including the claims extended by this court, shall be modified as follows:

In the lawsuit of this case.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 14, 2014, the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the instant surgery”) went into effect with respect to the symptoms of the escape from the 4-5 post-marculatory signboards, which were conducted by the Defendant’s C Hospital (hereinafter “Defendant Hospital”), by means of a climatic nuclear removal method (hereinafter “instant surgery”).

B. Around September 30, 2016, the Plaintiff complained of the Maritha, taken a Maritha in the hospital, and the Maritha, as a result of the said examination, the height of the 4-5 square meters was reduced, and the said Maritha was protruding back from the rear.

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1, 9, Eul evidence Nos. 5-1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. As to the lawfulness of the claim portion among the lawsuit in this case, the plaintiff sought payment of one million won for the expenses incurred in the physical appraisal procedure of the first instance court by the lawsuit in this case, and as to this, the defendant did not have any interest to file a lawsuit separately, and therefore, the claim in this part is unlawful.

On the other hand, the above amount claimed by the plaintiff is the amount paid as the physical appraisal cost in the first instance trial procedure, which is the amount paid as the litigation cost, and there is no interest to seek a lawsuit separately.

(See Supreme Court Decision 9Da68577 delivered on May 12, 2000). Accordingly, the part of the Plaintiff’s claim for the payment of one million won of the physical assessment costs of the instant lawsuit is unlawful, and the Defendant’s main defense pointing this out is with merit.

3. Judgment on the merits

A. D, the gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion, was the following error in performing the instant surgery. Accordingly, the Plaintiff was treated again in E Hospital due to the symptoms, such as spine and leg ebrate, compared to the instant surgery.

Therefore, the defendant, who is the operator of the defendant hospital, received medical expenses from the plaintiff 3,358.