The defendant shall pay 8,00,000 won to the plaintiff and 5% per annum from July 16, 2010 to August 11, 2017 and the next day.

Facts of recognition

Plaintiff

A (referring to the above plaintiff when the plaintiff is the FF student, hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff") was administered on July 16, 2010 by the "Gsung A" located in Busan Shipping Daegu (hereinafter referred to as the "Defendant hospital") operated by the defendant, both within the two areas, for a pair of gral and gralopic mal malmalmological surgery.

(hereinafter “instant surgery.” However, after the surgery, the Plaintiff expressed the dissatisfaction by failing to remove any pleasia on the inner part of the body in which the surgery was performed. Around August 5, 2010, the Defendant hospital injecteds the Plaintiff’s spathala and spacinone on the right side side of the Plaintiff’s spathala and the spacinone on February 26, 201.

On July 1, 2011, the Plaintiff refunded the operating expenses by having another hospital perform a chest removal surgery, and was subject to the surgery on the chest part of the chest part after the Hamsung surgery in Seoul.

Nevertheless, as the chest body part of the chest does not stand, on February 23, 2012, the Plaintiff received a double shot surgery and sprinking surgery on November 11, 2013, on the ground that the interior angle was in an excessive diameter form and sprinke on the ground that there is an excessive corrosion in the inner diameter form (e.g., the removal of the chest body part of the inner eye). In addition, on November 11, 2013, the Plaintiff received double spile surgery and sprinking surgery.

(A) This seems to be aimed at naturally leading to and recorrectioning both sons of the instant surgery due to the corrosion and anti-examination). [The grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, each entry of Gap 1 through 6, Eul 1, and Eul 1 (including numbers), the result of the appraisal commission to the Korean Medical Association, and the result of fact inquiry, the purport of the entire pleadings, are as follows: the defendant asserted the purport of the whole pleadings of the plaintiffs A as a doctor of the Korean Medical Association who performed the first anti-examination of the inside of the instant surgery, by excessively punishing the interior diameter during the instant surgery, and by negligence in an operation that makes the inside sense naturally harming.