1. In relation to an operation performed on February 14, 2013 by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

1. The principal lawsuit and counterclaim shall be deemed to be filed together;

A. A physician has the duty of care to take the best measures required to prevent risks depending on the patient’s specific symptoms or circumstances in light of the nature of the duties of managing the patient’s life, body, and health, and such duty of care should be determined on the basis of the level of medical practice performed in the clinical medicine field, such as medical institutions, at the time of performing the said medical act.

(B) Supreme Court Decision 99Da66328 Decided July 7, 2000, Supreme Court Decision 2007Da76290 Decided March 27, 2008, etc.

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the following facts: Gap evidence 1, 4, Eul evidence 10, Eul evidence 7, and 8 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole arguments as a result of each reply sent by the Chief of the Seoul National University Hospital and the Chief of the Korea Medical Dispute Mediation and Arbitration Agency to the entrustment of the examination of medical records by this Court and the whole purport

1) Defendant D hospitalized on February 11, 2013 in the Esantetrician’s hospital operated by the Plaintiff, showing severe symptoms of promoglehosis due to the decline in the Hague type due to Defendant D’s “self-finary type” and “finite type”. 2) On February 14, 2013, the Plaintiff performed the (part) proteinization for Defendant D’s treatment. During that process, the Plaintiff discovered the protein between Defendant D’s ledger and the protein and implemented the protein surgery together.

However, the Plaintiff caused an accident where Defendant D’s commander failed to fulfill his best duty of care in the course of booming the attachment between the commander and the womb (hereinafter “instant medical accident”).

Among them, the plaintiff's primary flags of the SPJ parts were flaged by the plaintiff, but other parts' flags (scale 1 x 1 mm) were not found at the time of the operation.

3. After the instant medical accident, following the symptoms, such as chloatitis suspected of having served as a captain, the Plaintiff showed symptoms, such as chloatitis, and on February 18, 2013.