1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

The defendant 716,081,429 won against the plaintiff A and 20,000 against the plaintiff B.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff A, as a party, suffered obstacles, such as cerebrovascular color, cerebral marine, flag, fall in recognition function, while being treated by the medical personnel of the Dental Medical Center operated by the Defendant (hereinafter “Defendant Hospital”).

Plaintiff

B is the husband of the Plaintiff A.

The defendant is the employer of the medical staff of the defendant hospital.

B. On May 19, 2005, Plaintiff A complained that there had been a sporadic sporadism since one year prior to the visit to Defendant Hospital. On June 7, 2005, Plaintiff A visited Defendant Hospital and diagnosed, and was administered with spokeum, which is an irregular beer treatment medicine, as a result of the diagnosis. Plaintiff A was administered with spokeum as a result of the diagnosis. (2) Plaintiff A was treated with spodic spokeum in a non-regular way with Defendant Hospital and E Hospital, and was treated with spodic spodic spodic spos.

Nevertheless, the Plaintiff A suffers from scarcity, the frequency and strength of the heart resistance, and from around 201, the symptoms of the Plaintiff A, such as the respiratory distress symptoms after the movement, were serious.

3) On February 19, 2013, the result of the Defendant Hospital’s chest scarcity test for the Plaintiff on Feb. 19, 2013, the risk of brain scarfing by an unfair beer compared to the result of the chest scarf test on Aug. 28, 2012, which had been previously conducted on Feb. 19, 2013, was deemed to have increased the risk of brain scarfing by an unfair beer compared with that of the Defendant Hospital’s chest scarfing test, and the Plaintiff A recommended the Plaintiff to undergo an electric shocking surgery because there is a risk of brain scarfing. 4) on May 21, 2013, the Plaintiff visited the Defendant Hospital to undergo an electric shocking surgery. On June 10,

C. In mind, the medical personnel of the Defendant Hospital 1) took into account the possibility that cerebral typhism will be caused by the procedure prior to the execution of eculatory surgery to the Plaintiff A, and (1) before the day of hospitalization, the medical personnel of the Defendant Hospital 1 took into account the possibility that cerebral typhism will be caused, and (2) from June 10, 2013 to June 00, 2013, which is the day of hospitalization, 200:00, June 11, 2013, which is the day of hospitalization, 200: