1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

purport, purport, and.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning this case is that of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the cases of cutting down or adding some contents as follows, and therefore, it is identical to that of the judgment of the court of first instance pursuant to Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(1) The reasoning for the plaintiff's appeal is not significantly different from the argument in the first instance court, and the fact-finding and judgment in the first instance court are justifiable even if the evidence submitted in the first instance court's evidences adopted by the first instance court is not presented. 2. 3. 1. 3. 3. 3. 1.

After the part of the 3th sentence of Paragraph 3 of this Article, the phrase “an operation to cut off a womb by drilling a small hole and inserting an internal and external operation with a special camera” shall be added.

(2) The third party decision of the court of first instance is 1.B.

In the first sentence of paragraph (1), "(s) for the training of the Rose of Sharons" shall be added after the end of the first sentence.

(3) The third party decision of the court of first instance is 1.C.

Of the 2nd navigations, the part of the “turgical damage and air conditioning” shall be described as “turgical damage (surging and narrowing) and air conditionings (surging into water due to a hole between luminous and water quality).”

(4) The third party decision of the first instance court is 1. D.

In the first place of navigation, the part of the "uous luminous Refixment" shall be conducted by using the "uous luminous refluorrative recovery operation and regrix of urine urgical regical regrative operation".

(5) 4.2. B of the first instance judgment.

The "whether or not the plaintiff's limitation of liability" portion shall be applied as follows:

B. 1 Plaintiff’s limitation of liability is “the Plaintiff’s limitation of liability,” and it constitutes a merger certificate that occurs ordinarily at the time of the operation of the sloping surgery, and the Defendant was likely to contribute to the injury of the instant case with the experience of only the sloping surgery twice. The Plaintiff endeavored to prevent the Defendant from expanding the Defendant’s damage caused by the instant injury. The Plaintiff’s negligence on the part of another hospital that treated the instant injury was involved in the Defendant’s symptoms.