1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) executed with the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) on March 8, 2014 in relation to the treatment of the salary bed.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

Facts of recognition

The Plaintiff is an oriental medical doctor who operates the “Chanwon” (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff Council member”), and the Defendant is a person who, with a shoulder fresh certificate on March 8, 2014, applied to the Plaintiff Council member and received a bed treatment from the Plaintiff.

The Defendant complained of symptoms, such as a poppy, a poppy, a poppy, and a poppy, etc. from the day of the Plaintiff’s receipt of a bed treatment by the Plaintiff. On March 13, 2014, the Defendant was subject to pharmacologic treatment, etc. at the Hadong-hee University University, Gangwon-do University, Samsung Seoul Medical Center, Seoul Medical Center, Seoul National University Hospital, Central University Hospital, and Aju University Hospital.

However, the defendant's symptoms have not been improved, and the recurrence of symptoms has continued until now.

As such, the defendant's situation was determined to be a chronic divers, a single divers, due to the plaintiff's ad hoc treatment.

(2) The court below held that the medical accident of this case occurred due to the plaintiff's inurnal treatment of the defendant, and the defendant's symptoms are "the medical accident of this case" (the defendant's symptoms are "the grounds for recognition") . [The defendant's symptoms 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 to 2, and Eul evidence 1 to 12 (the number of additional numbers is included; hereinafter the same shall apply) . The court's physical evaluation of the director of the Central University Hospital of this case was commissioned by the National Health Insurance Corporation, the National Health Insurance Corporation, the Furology, Gviterology, the Hurology, the Hebter, the Ilter, the Ilter, the KHwon, and the head of the Central University Hospital of this case, and all of the plaintiff and the defendant were liable for damages due to the plaintiff's inurnal treatment prior to the treatment of this case. The plaintiff did not have any dispute over the liability for damages due to side effects, etc. caused by the plaintiff.

Limit of liability in this Court.