1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following payment order shall be revoked, and that part shall be revoked.

1. Facts of recognition; and

2. The reasons why this court should explain each of the above parts are as follows, except for the change of Article 2(b)(6-11 of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows, the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to that of each of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. Restrictions on liability for damages: (a) the following circumstances recognized by the overall purport of the oral argument, namely, ① the medical personnel at Defendant Hospital diagnosed and treat relevant treatment with 10/1000,000 after the internal organs of D (the deceased on March 4, 2014; hereinafter “the deceased”); (b) the Defendant hospital’s prompt diagnosis and treatment were performed; and (c) the Deceased’s status was recovered from the time of the prompt diagnosis and treatment; and (c) the Deceased was merely a minor of 1 and 5 months at the time, who was merely a minor of 1 and 5 months at the time, had no choice but to raise the possibility of the relevant disease or risk at the time of the disease; (d) imposing all the damage on the Defendant following the death of the deceased in light of the degree of danger as above, characteristics of medical practice, etc. violates the principle of equity to impose damages on the Defendant; and (d) the calculation of damages should also be limited to 50/100 of the Defendant’s liability for damages.

3. Scope of liability for damages

A. Gender and date of birth 1) gender and : E-born, female, and 1 year and 20 days of age at the time of a medical accident: The deceased resided in the Gyeong-gu, Chungcheongnam-si, an urban area, and thus, the city daily wage from September 12, 2032 to September 11, 2072 (the plaintiff sought the lost income based on 86,686 won of the daily Urban Wage, and the defendant does not dispute this).