1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 2, 2008, the Plaintiff entered the right upper flaverization (hereinafter “instant injury”). On March 3, 2008, the Plaintiff visited a hospital operated by the Defendant, and received a eropologic and metal resistant surgery (hereinafter “the first surgery”) and physical therapy. B. On July 21, 2008, the Plaintiff was diagnosed as a result of a medical examination conducted at a astronomical Matern Hospital, and received a diagnosis that the surgery needs to be conducted because the surgery is not appropriate. On September 24, 2008, the Plaintiff was diagnosed by the Defendant as a result of a medical examination conducted at the Materntic Hospital.

C. On October 29, 2009, the Plaintiff received disinfection on October 27, 2010, from an E hospital operated by D, on the ground that: (a) the removal of raw syke metal plates; (b) the syke syke syke syke syke syke syke syke syke syke syke syke syke syke syke syke syke syke syke syke syke syke syke sykes and metal syke syke syke syke syke syke syke syke sykes;

Since then, the plaintiff's pelvis infection was cured by undergoing re-operations, etc. at the Seoul large hospital, and the pelvise of the pelvis pelvis was also cured.

However, the part of the plaintiff's upper part was reduced by 3.4 cm compared to the part of the upper part, the part was partially demoted, the scope of movement was restricted, and the part part of the eromatic erossis remains a permanent disability.

In addition, both the plaintiff's right arms and the parts of the body were scarbly left.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1-7 evidence, Eul 4 evidence (including the number of branch offices)

2. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant should have carried out a pelvise by setting up both columns while conducting the first operation for the plaintiff, but the operation department did not match with others, and the operation department did not match with others. The plaintiff's argument that the plaintiff did not perform the first operation without solid fixing, and the plaintiff's physical treatment was performed in an unreasonable manner.