1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. At around 17:20 on August 21, 2012, E: (a) assessed the Plaintiff’s face level on the ground that he/she was unable to live with the Plaintiff at the 3rd Dong Office of the Civilian Correctional Institution; and (b) suffered injury to the Plaintiff, such as “one mouth of the Haak-gu, one mouth of the Haak-gu, and one Haak-gu (one Haak-gu),” which requires six weeks’ treatment for the Plaintiff.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). (b)

On August 21, 2012, the Plaintiff was hospitalized into G dental hospital operated by Defendant B (hereinafter “Defendant’s Private Teaching Institutes”) on August 22, 2012 for the purpose of blood transfusion treatment, following the instant accident: (a) hospitalized into G dental hospital operated by Defendant B (hereinafter “Defendant’s Private Teaching Institutes”) on August 22, 2012; and (b) received the Plaintiff’s climatic therapy on the part of the upper right hump to the upper right hump; and (c) performing the surgery on the part of the upper left hump to the upper right hump to the mouth (hereinafter “instant operation”); (d) received the instant surgery on the part of the upper left hump to the upper left hump to the upper right hump to the upper right hump;

8. 25. The discharge was made on 25.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Defendants jointly pay the amount stated in the purport of the claim to the Plaintiff, because they committed the following tort.

① The Defendant Republic of Korea is obligated to protect the Plaintiff, who is a prisoner. In the instant surgery, the Defendant’s private teaching institute or Defendant D had not fulfilled its duty to explain properly to the Plaintiff, and whether the Plaintiff was given treatment according to the best treatment method, but did not perform such duty, and rather did not take any measures against the Defendant’s private teaching institute’s breach of its duty to explain or violate its duty to provide medical treatment. Rather, the Defendant’s private teaching institute or Defendant D’s failure to hear the explanation of symptoms from the Defendant’s private teaching institute or Defendant D, thereby failing to do so.