1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

1. Facts of recognition; and

2. Occurrence of liability for damages and limitation on liability;

A. The reasoning for this part of the judgment of the court of first instance is that the court below accepted this part of the judgment of the court of first instance, which read “the total amount of abandonment” of Articles 1 and 2 of the judgment of the court of first instance as “the total amount of abandonment”. The following is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the judgment as to the assertion emphasized by the defendant in the court of first instance. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of

B. Additional determination 1) The Defendant’s summary of the Defendant’s assertion is not deemed to have been negligent in observing and taking measures against blood transfusion, by failing to properly examine the location or movement of the Defendant’s wall amount. Even if there were medical malpractice, the deceased F (hereinafter “the deceased”).

(ii)The results of the death of the original catum shock are not caused by the catum catum catum, but due to ordinary mergers arising from the catum catum surgery for the original catum cancer (prehum catum catum catum catum catum catum catuming), so there is no causation between the negligence of the Defendant hospital and the deceased’s death. (ii) The following circumstances can be taken into account: (i) the appraisal of the J Association was found to have two or more patum catum catum, and the view that the context of the catum catum catum catum catum is found to have been discovered, and the catum catum catum catum catum catum catum catum catum catum catum catum catum catum within the body.