1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part of the judgment against the plaintiff ordering payment is revoked.

2. The defendants are the defendants.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. From February 1, 2007 to August 7, 2013, Defendant B is a dentist who operated “E store” on the first floor of Seocho-gu Seoul Seocho-gu Seoul (hereinafter “instant dental license”); Defendant C is a person who works as an assistant nurse in the instant dental license; Nonparty F is a person employed by Defendant B and worked as a dentist in the instant dental license.

B. On August 26, 2011, the Plaintiff first received from the instant dental license to the pianma ray photographs and to the infecting treatment for dental babies. Since then, the Plaintiff re-entered the instant dental license to the Plaintiff, and received from the instant dental license to December 26, 2012, i.e., the crypt dynasium part of the dynasium (hereinafter “instant medical license”).

C. Examining the medical records of the Plaintiff in the instant dental surgery, Defendant C, an assistant nurse, recorded most of the medical records as follows, and only a part of which was a dentist, F recorded.

The Defendants recognized the fact that most of the medical records of the Plaintiff were recorded by Defendant C through reference materials attached to the legal brief dated March 28, 2018.

(However, the signature of dentists, such as F, etc., written on the right side of the recorded medical records by Defendant C, is simplifiedly written on the part of the recorded medical records, and the signature of dentists, such as F, etc., is written on the “F”. The separate recorder of the recorded records, whether or not each part of the recorded records, and whether or not there is any physical condition at the time, and the possibility of nec treatment, etc., of the Defendant C’s address (Hef Comla), the examination, the use of the pre-cry framework, and the flacing of the flac, the Defendant C general disease (Past History) X, EFHNN/S treatment plan (Treat PL), and the Defendant CC treatment plan (Treat PL), were written on the same side of the recorded records, and there is no reason to claim that the aforementioned part of the recorded records “DPDD” was entirely replaced by the aforementioned dentist, but there is no reason to claim that the aforementioned part of the recorded records at the time.