1. The part against the defendant among the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the plaintiffs corresponding to the revoked part are against the defendant.

1. The reasoning of this part of the judgment of the court is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part of the reasoning is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

A. The plaintiffs asserted to the effect that the defendant committed the following medical negligence in the course of the pre-treatment and delivery of the plaintiff B, and that, as a result, the plaintiff A committed a tort that generates a legacy such as physical paralysis and speech disorder caused by damage to the Malithal gun, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff A the daily income, future medical expenses, assistive devices, nursing expenses, consolation money, and consolation money, respectively.

B. The negligence in the cryptive measure taken to prevent the pregnancy of a baby due to her pregnancy and the exposure thereto (Article 1 negligence) was well aware of the Plaintiff’s symptoms of her pregnancy urology, and thus, the Defendant performed a tracking observation by periodically measuring the Plaintiff’s blood transfusion or educating the Plaintiff B to measure the blood transfusion. ② If the Plaintiff did not reach the blood target level, the Plaintiff’s crypology is determined to manage the Plaintiff’s dypology by making decisions on the administration of the crypology or the cypology, and ③ the mother of her pregnant urology is highly likely to be pregnant with a baby, and ③ the mother’s crypology was calculated by the crypology examination of her fetus when her fetus was born, taking into account that the error rate of the anticipated body error calculated by the crypology and the implementation of the cypology surgery is greater than ordinary cases, and thus, the possibility of the crypology and the possibility of the crypology by negligence.

(hereinafter collectively referred to as “the first negligence of this case”).

The defendant is at all the heart of the plaintiff A who had a fetus during the past delivery (the second negligence).