beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal and the claim extended in the trial are all dismissed.
2. This is due to the extension of claims for the costs of appeal.
Reasons
1. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The assertion and judgment
A. 1) Determination on claims against Defendant D, E, and F 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion as to whether there was negligence of delaying the scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopics, notwithstanding the status of the mother and the fetus, i.e., Defendant F was negligent by neglecting the mother and the fetus.
② The rate of death of a newborn baby born after 34 weeks of pregnancy, and the rate of foreign exchange, did not differ from that of a baby born by 40 weeks of pregnancy. In light of the number of pregnant women (35 weeks of pregnancy) at the time of the birth of the Plaintiff at Defendant 1 Hospital, the Plaintiff’s body weight at the time of birth (2.26 km) cannot be considered as assistance in childbirth, and even if it was appropriate for Defendant F to immediately select only a baby at the time of birth of the Plaintiff, it was negligent for the Defendant F to make an administration of the suppression suppression system to her mother, thereby making it possible for her mother to immediately select a baby.
(3) In light of the results of the internal examination conducted at around H 13:40, the head of mountain village can be seen as having been in a state of need of emergency sking since only a sking was sking in the same state as at the time of electric power generation on the same day, notwithstanding the administration of the sking-domination system at around 13:40. However, Defendant F was negligent in failing to decide and implement emergency sking during the same day, and failing to perform his/her duty to explain to the head of mountain village about sking-domination in preparation for emergencies.
B. We examine the judgment, the defendant F.O. M. M. M. M. F. M.