1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On December 3, 2013, the Plaintiff was diagnosed by Defendant C, a doctor, on December 3, 2013, on the following grounds: (a) the escape certificate of the conical signboard escape between the Defendant C and the 4-5 pages, which were sent to the “D Hospital” operated by Defendant B, and was diagnosed by Defendant C, No. 3-4.

B. On December 4, 2013, with respect to the 3-4 occasions during which the Plaintiff was subject to both of the Defendants C, the Plaintiff was subject to both of the embarracingsings and the 4-5 times during the 201st century.

C. On December 28, 2013, the Plaintiff discharged the Plaintiff, and complained of symptoms, such as a string, a fluoring, a fluoring, a right dluor, and a dluoring horse.

[Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 3, 4, and 5 (including branch numbers in the case of additional numbers), the result of the request for the examination of medical records to the director of the East Asia University Hospital of this Court, the purport of the entire pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was erroneous in the surgery, or the Defendant C did not properly treat the appeal on the surgery, thereby causing obstacles to the Plaintiff, such as launchings and paralysiss, to the right.

Therefore, Defendant C and its employer are jointly and severally liable to compensate for all damages incurred by the Plaintiff due to negligence in the course of operation or treatment.

B. In full view of the results of the request for the examination of medical records to the head of the East Asian University Hospital of this Court, the overall purport of the argument and the result of the request for the examination of the physical examination to the head of the East Asian University of this Court is as follows: (i) if the instant surgery was caused by the psychotropic damage such as the necessary pathnosis during the surgery, immediately after the surgery, symptoms should be presented; (ii) the Plaintiff’s symptoms did not have been discovered, and the Plaintiff’s symptoms occurred after five days following the surgery, and thus, cannot be deemed to have been erroneous in the surgery. (iii) The degree of treatment and clinical level after the surgery is consistent with the level of treatment and clinical level; and (iv) the amount of flag in addition to the light on the part of the East Asian University of this case.