1. The Defendant’s KRW 30,000,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from May 30, 2015 to September 30, 2015, and the following.

In light of the above legal principles, it is difficult to apply to the Plaintiff, even if the treatment period is terminated but the treatment period is still existing at the time it is complied with other diagnosis standards, and this item cannot be used as a main diagnosis, and the remaining type of disease can not be classified as a main diagnosis. In addition, according to the above instruction, it is difficult to grant 3 I codes to the patient who supplies blood to the core part of the brain in question without any rhetoric rhetoric rhetoric rhetoric rhetoric rhetoric rhetoric rhetoric rhetoric rhetoric rhetoric rhetoric rhetoric rhetoric rhetoric rhetoric rhetoric rhetoric rhetoric rhetoric rhetoric rhetoric rhetoric rhetoric rhetoric rhetoric rhetoric rhetoric rhetoric s.

7) If a brain cerebrovascular disease is described as a result of a video testing in the crowdfunding manual, and there is no additional clinical information thereon, if there is no additional clinical information, it can be classified as the result of a abnormal test of R90.8 and the diagnostic image of the psychotropic system is without clinical information. However, this means no clinical information, which means a case where a heat resistant brain is discovered as a result of a video testing, so it is difficult to apply the video testing to the Plaintiff who conducted the video testing.