1. The Defendant: KRW 17,896,168 to Plaintiff A; KRW 5,00,000 to Plaintiff B; and each of them, from February 1, 2007 to October 1, 2016.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiffs are married couple, and the Defendant is a father and wife, and the Defendant was a medical specialist, who operated the “Dsan Women’s Medical Doctor” by April 26, 2013.

B. The Plaintiff A received king operation (hereinafter “the instant surgery”) from the Defendant on the ground of the diversity caused by the fertility from the Defendant E, and gave birth to F.

C. While having undergone chronic pains, Plaintiff A applied to G Hospital at Korea Forestry University G Hospital on June 29, 2014 due to pulmonary maculosis, and as a result of the inspection, Plaintiff A was in an emergency operation due to the discovery of approximately 7 cm in the left-hand ladic lacing.

According to the result of the operation, the guns, which are presumed to have been used at the time of the previous operation, have been stuffed between the stations in the unit and the head of the unit, and the other foreign substances in Article 2 have been discovered and removed together, and the head of the unit and the head of the center have been found to have been 25 cm in total over two parts.

[Reasons] Facts without dispute; Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 14, Eul evidence No. 2; Gap evidence No. 4 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply); the result of the commission of physical appraisal to the head of the G Hospital at the G Hospital at the Geman National University; the results of the fact inquiry to the head of the Seoul National Health Insurance Corporation; and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the liability for damages has arisen;

A. The Defendant’s assertion by the parties concerned: (a) the dys used at the time of the instant surgery and other surgery tools used by the Plaintiff at the time of the surgery were in the part of the Plaintiff’s clothes; (b) the Plaintiff got through chronic renals for seven (7) years; and (c) the Plaintiff suffered damage to the part of the complaint, thereby compensating the Plaintiffs for the damages incurred therefrom.

B. Considering the fact of the above determination and the fact that there is no evidence that the parts discovered of foreign substances, such as the above fact of recognition, are adjacent to the instant surgery department, and that there is no evidence that the Plaintiff A received another surgery with which foreign substances, such as dys, outside of the instant surgery, such as dys, etc., remaining.