1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On December 15, 2015, at around 15:55, 2015, C (hereinafter “victim”) suffered injury, such as the instant traffic accident (hereinafter “the instant traffic accident”), the main part of the instant traffic accident, the main part of the instant accident, and the transmission of f, which was driven by F, while driving the Ortob on the front of the E- pharmacy located in Yeong-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-si (hereinafter “C”), due to the shock of the vehicle in the backsided by F, who was driving the Ortoba (hereinafter “A).

B. From December 15, 2015 to January 5, 2016, the victim was unable to undergo a surgery at a G hospital due to the strike of nurses while receiving a outpatient treatment from a medical corporation G (hereinafter “G hospital”) from the medical corporation (hereinafter “G hospital”), and the Defendant transferred the facility to the H hospital (hereinafter “Defendant hospital”), the president, around January 6, 2016.

C. On January 11, 2016, the Defendant: (a) hospitalized in the Defendant Hospital; (b) performed a felling operation on the right opening on and around January 12, 2016; (c) transferred the victim to the Chungcheong University Hospital; and (d) transferred the victim’s disease to the Chungcheong University Hospital; and (c) the victim continued to be aware of the patient room.

A medical specialist, who had been in charge of an operation for a victim, filed a complaint against the injury by occupational negligence. However, on May 24, 2016, he/she received a disposition of non-conformity with evidence on the ground that “The grounds that the result of the appraisal by the Korea Medical Dispute Mediation and Arbitration Agency was inappropriate for the operation and anesthesia. The method was appropriate before the operation, and the patient’s low-carbon brain brain damage was appropriate, and it was confirmed that there was no direct causal relationship with the general anesthesia.”

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap 1 through 9, Eul 1 through 6, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. After the instant traffic accident, the victim did not have any more than two parts, but after being performed at the Defendant Hospital, the victim was in an unknown state of consciousness due to an unknown cause. The Plaintiff, as an insurer of a sea-going vehicle, paid KRW 85,676,990 to October 2016.