The part against Defendant B among the judgment of the first instance, including the Plaintiff’s claim that was reduced by this court.

1. The reasoning of the lower court’s reasoning as to this part of the facts and the Plaintiff’s assertion is as follows, and the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance (from 2, 13 to 9, 20) is the same, except for the following cases. As such, this part of the reasoning is cited, including a summary, under the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

On the 6th of the first instance judgment, 4th of the first instance judgment "anti-biotics" is raised as "anti-biotics."

The 7th judgment of the first instance court "not less than" shall be deemed "not less than".

In the judgment of the court of first instance, the term "existence" in the 8th 11th 12th son and the 12th son shall be read as "existence".

If the 8th judgment of the first instance is dismissed, the "this court" in the 19th judgment shall be "the court of the first instance".

2. Determination

A. The reasons for this part of the claim for damages are as follows, and the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (from 10, up to 16, up to 16, 3) is the same, except for the cases of dismissal or addition as follows. Thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Each "this Court" in the 11th judgment of the first instance court, the 12th judgment, the 13th judgment, and the 13th judgment shall be considered as "the court of the first instance".

The following shall be added to 8 pages 14 of the judgment of the first instance.

The defendant alleged that "(the defendant) performed the spatition (the period of hospitalization from May 12, 2014 to May 15, 2014, the plaintiff's hospitalization for the purpose of preventing infection in relation to each of the instant procedures, but the Health Insurance Corporation made a claim for the correction of the number of anti-spatition after judging that the number of anti-spatition would be reduced in accordance with the criteria for preventive anti-spatition examination when the defendant filed a claim for the insurance premium with the Health Insurance Corporation. Therefore, the defendant asserted that the number of anti-spatitions was appropriate for the preventive anti-spatition during the above period. However, the entries in the evidence in the evidence Nos. 11 to 13

Even if the Defendants were to have been stimuled with the stimulious gold, the discharge period is the time of discharge in light of the Plaintiff’s status at the time of discharge on May 16, 2014.