1. Defendant A and Defendant D jointly share KRW 7,00,000 with respect to the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff from April 12, 2016 to April 2020.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The relevant Defendant medical corporation B (hereinafter “Defendant corporation”) is a corporation that establishes and operates the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government G Hospital located in F (hereinafter “Defendant hospital”).

Defendant C is the father and doctor of Defendant C’s hospital, and Defendant D and Defendant E are the father and father of Defendant C’s hospital and the propeller and part-time employer of Defendant C’s hospital.

B. On May 13, 2015, the Plaintiff was diagnosed by the father and the mother of the Defendant hospital to the effect that it is difficult for the Plaintiff to engage in natural pregnancy due to the diversity of the diversity of the womb at the mother of the Defendant hospital. The Defendant C, a doctor, explained that it is necessary to conduct a siversary surgery and a siversary surgery for the removal of the siversity of the womb.

On July 24, 2015, the Plaintiff was hospitalized in the Defendant Hospital, and received a self-flacing operation to remove the glacium from the hospital.

C. On April 6, 2016, the Plaintiff was hospitalized in the Defendant Hospital, and was hospitalized in the instant hospital on April 7, 2016 on April 7, 2016, under Defendant C’s house, for the removal of Rose of Sharon.

hereinafter referred to as "the primary lave operation".

. The first round operation was required for 6 hours, and 21 in the course of the operation was removed.

In the course of the operation, the blood transfusion amounted to 2000 to 2300mL, and the medical personnel of the defendant hospital administered a total of 400mL to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff received medical treatment in a middle-patient after surgery, and moved to a general hospital on April 9, 2016. D.

At around 16:00 on April 12, 2016, Defendant E, who was a Leaket, tried to find the Plaintiff’s sick room and remove the amount of excreta. Defendant D, a propeller, was headed.

Defendant D attempted to remove the excreta, but the excreta did not go through, and the Plaintiff complained of the pain, and continued to anesthesia the excreta, and after which the Plaintiff complained of the pain, Defendant D left the part of the Plaintiff’s clothes. However, the milked part was cut, and a considerable part was left in the Plaintiff’s clothes.

Plaintiff

As the guardian resists against Defendant D, Defendant D recognized the number of his own rooms and used a simple laparocing operation than laparoc surgery.