1. The plaintiff's appeal and the defendant's appeal are all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

purport, purport, and.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for modification as follows. Thus, this is acceptable as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. In light of the corrected part, it can be presumed that infections occurred in the part of the plaintiff's surgery due to the defendant's negligence who failed to fulfill the duty of care to prevent infections in the process of the operation and treatment of this case. Thus, the defendant is liable to compensate the damages suffered by the plaintiff due to such medical malpractices

The defendant asserts that the above infection was caused by the plaintiff's peculiar transfer, such as congenital immunodeficiency syndrome, but the result of the medical record appraisal on the each of the statements and images in Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 7 (including paper numbers), and on the head of the first instance Seoul Hospital at the 1,000 Seoul University, it is insufficient to recognize that the result of the fact inquiry on the head of the Singu Incheon University University Hospital at the first instance is "the plaintiff is a special transfer with congenital immunodeficiency et al." by itself, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

From the 5th judgment of the first instance court to the 16th sentence in the 13th sentence, the following shall be amended:

B. Of the 10 pages 7 and 8 of the judgment of the first instance court, the phrase “no evidence exists to acknowledge the objection” is amended to the following grounds: “The transportation cost, etc. of the Plaintiff’s assertion is a damage in proximate causal relation with the Defendant’s medical malpractice, and it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff actually disbursed the expenses.”

C. Of the 10th judgment of the first instance court, “The entry of No. 6 alone is insufficient to recognize it” in the 11th judgment of the first instance court, “The entry of No. 6, 16, and 17 evidence” alone is in proximate causal relation with the Defendant’s medical malpractice.