1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Defendants exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. On February 24, 1987, the Plaintiff entered the Marine Corps on August 9, 2009, and worked as a major in the 32 large group of 32 teams of the Marine Corps from March 9, 2010 to D, the Plaintiff was subject to an accident that followed the safety line in the course of coastal search and training on September 6, 201, and the Plaintiff was faced with the inside part of the mother driver’s loss. On September 7, 2011, at the Daegu Armed Forces Hospital of the Armed Forces (hereinafter referred to as “CT photograph”) the diagnosis of compliance-furatom photography (hereinafter referred to as “CT shooting”).

B. On September 27, 2011, the Plaintiff initially entered the Seoul Telecommunication Hospital (hereinafter “Defendant Hospital”) operated by the Defendant Samsung Bio-Public Interest Foundation (hereinafter “Defendant Foundation”), and was diagnosed as the same as the diagnosis at the Daegu Armed Forces Hospital. On October 4, 201, the Plaintiff was hospitalized at the Defendant Hospital from October 15 to 48, 201, to October 18, 201, and received from Defendant B, C (Defendant B’s house house, Defendant C’s aid, and Defendant C’s will; hereinafter “Defendant’s will”); “the first surgery”) and “the first surgery” (hereinafter “the first surgery”); from around 22:43:26 on the same day, from around 22:43 to around 26, 201, and from around 15:48, and from around 18:00 to around 18, 2011, the Plaintiff received subsidies from Defendant B, Defendant B, and BF surgery (hereinafter “the second surgery”).

On October 15, 2011, the Plaintiff was discharged from the Defendant Hospital.

C. The Plaintiff was discharged from active service in the Marine Corps in around 2013, as it completely lost the vision of the unit after the first and second operations.

[Reasons for Recognition] No. 1, No. 1, No. 1, No. 1-2, and No. 2

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Defendant’s will have pressured and damaged the Plaintiff’s design by inserting excessively large universal figures into the Plaintiff’s account at the time of the first surgery.

In addition, the defendant's doctors delayed a considerable time after the first operation and implemented the second operation, and take improper measures at the time of the second operation.