The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 2, 2017, at around 22:20, the Plaintiff applied the can lid to the right lid and applied the tear of tear, and applied to the emergency room at C Hospital at around 23:00 on the same day (hereinafter “instant hospital”). At around 23:0 on the same day, D, a doctor on duty at the said hospital, asked the Plaintiff about the cause of the accident, provided first aid, such as antibiotic medication and disinfection of the upper part of the body, and provided him with the following day for satis.

B. On June 3, 2017, at around 08:30, the Plaintiff received treatment from the Defendant at the hospital and received the treatment, and then received the said treatment at the upper part of the hospital (hereinafter “instant salary grade”).

C. After the foregoing felling, the Plaintiff applied to the above hospital almost every day for disinfection of the operation department. On June 13, 2017, the Plaintiff was removed from the operation department room.

On June 27, 2017, the Plaintiff complained of that hospital’s internal source to the Defendant that caused a change in the debrising area (hereinafter “conbrising symptoms of debrising”) by failing to examine the part of the right fingers (hereinafter “confising of debrising”). On July 12, 2017, the Plaintiff received an operation on August 1, 2017, including “confising 5 debrising down the ebs of the ebs of the ebs of the ebs of the ebs of the ebs of the ebs of the ebs of the ebs of the ebs of the ebs of the ebs of the ebs of the ebs of the ebs of the ebs of the efs of the ebs of the ebs of the ebs of the ebs of the ebs.

On the other hand, the E Hospital Doctor F diagnosed that the Plaintiff’s status was “a sudden, contingent, and external shocks caused by external shocks” and that the state of disability was permanently unable to recover since the Plaintiff’s status was completely restricted in the construction of the 40 degree scopic scopical field.

E. On July 18, 2017, the Plaintiff suffered a loss due to the Defendant’s medical malpractice at the hospital, and thus, presented a sincere answer and solution.