1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case, such as the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance, are as follows: (a) Nos. 4, 9 and 10 of the judgment of the court of first instance; (b) No. 4, 10 and 11 of the judgment; and (c) No. 5, 13 and 14 of the "No. 5, it was found to have been due to a chronic wave, etc." (d) "No. 13 and 14 of the MRI reading results taken on the same date; (b) the MRI reading results taken on October 5, 2007; (c) the possibility of acute damage; and (d) there was a difference in the possibility of being funded; (d) there was a high possibility of being cited at least 6 months prior to the operation, or that there was a high possibility of being cited at least 20 months prior to the operation of the court of first instance as it did not appear that the heat was 50 or more than 14 months prior to the operation.

[Supplementary Provisions] The ratio of damage to the state of complete comparison with the appraisal commission on October 5, 2007 by this Court on the MRI image and the estimated point of time of rupture: The ratio of damage to the state of complete comparison is determined to be about 100% from the accurate judgment on the condition before the operation. The accurate point of time of rupture as of October 5, 2007 is not reasonable, but the actual aspect of the low-supture, which is the front rupture of the right-hand rupture, taken by the two main hospitals on October 5, 207. Since each map of the latter one's rupture (each map consisting of approximately 65 percent of the total rupture combined with the rupture combined with the rupture combined with the rupture combined with the rupture combined with the rupture combined with the rupture combined with the rupture combined with the rupture, there is no possibility that the rupture will be over three months.