1. The Defendants jointly set forth KRW 17,435,416, the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the Appointor H KRW 3,000,000, respectively.

1. Basic facts

(a) The relationship between the parties 1) Defendant C, D, E, and F are the “Janan, E, E, and E, and the Defendant Hospital” at Yansan-si I in Jeonju-si.

Defendant B operated, and Defendant B was the doctor of the Defendant Hospital affiliated with the Defendant Hospital. 2) The Selection G et al.

The defendant hospital received treatment from Defendant B, such as an internal autopsy and crypt operation, from Defendant B, as described in the following B, at the defendant hospital, such as the internal autopsy autopsy and crypt operation, and the plaintiff’s designated party; hereinafter “Plaintiff”).

H 'H' is called 'H'.

(b) G is the parents of G. B. From October 12, 2013 to February 4, 2016, G complaining of the symptoms as shown in attached Table 1 at the Defendant Hospital, and received medical treatment from Defendant B (attached Table 1 No. 4-12, effective December 26, 2013), and “the first surgery”, and “the second surgery” shall be deemed to be “the second surgery”.

(C) After the 1 and 2 surgery of this case, G remains in a transformation of the upper right side and both sides of it, and there was a sacratitis and a sacratal saches arising out of earth and sacratal saches that do not completely cover the eye at a level of 2 meters when locked is well locked. (d) Earth means that the eye is not completely cut at the time when she was sacrated, and it is diagnosed by the patient by sacratizing the sacrat of the sacrat and the sacrat of the sacratum in the sacrat. [In the absence of dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap 1, 3, 7, Eul 1, and Eul 1, order to submit taxation information on the sacratal sacrats, results of physical assessment of the previous university hospital of this court, the purport of the entire pleadings in this court as a whole.

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that Defendant B had not diagnosed the instant 1 surgery as treatment method in order to treat the internal autopsy of both sides of G, despite the fact that Defendant B should not have diagnosed the instant 1 surgery as treatment method. However, by negligence, Defendant B selected the instant 1 surgery as treatment method.