1. All appeals by the defendant against the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

purport, purport, and.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the supplementary determination as to the circumstances alleged by the defendant as follows. Thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. On November 7, 2014, the Defendant asserts that there is no causal link between the Plaintiff’s right-hand flag damage and the Defendant’s practice of surgery, as it is deemed that the flaging flag, which is administered in a depth of 1cm, is physically impossible to schip schip, and that it is not possible to schip 0.4c inflag as to the right-hand flag on the right-hand golf Lel.

In other words, the following circumstances acknowledged by the Defendant comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in the descriptions of evidence Nos. 1, 1, 3, and 9, the Defendant, at the time of administering a balone to the Plaintiff on Nov. 7, 2014, injected a 0.4C cump on the right part of the Plaintiff, but, at the time of administering a balone to the Plaintiff on Nov. 7, 2014, injected a balone on the adjacent part with bones and power attached to the bones to enhance treatment effect. Even if the length of the balone used at the time as alleged by the Defendant was only 1 mm, if the Plaintiff selected a method of injecting the baloneosis adjacent to the parts over which the Plaintiff complained of the balosis, it seems that there is no possibility that the balone damage caused direct damage to the balone, but it seems that the Defendant’s balone damage or 5malone damage was not a chronic balone.

In light of the fact that she was born, etc., the defendant suffered from flag damage to the right side of A by performing flaging treatments.