1. The Defendants’ respective Plaintiff KRW 125,884,289, and 5% per annum from August 2, 2011 to July 20, 2016.

1. Basic facts

A. Defendant B is a person who, with his will, worked as the director of the G Hospital located in the E Hospital located in the city operated by the Defendant medical corporation C.

B. The Plaintiff was hospitalized in the E Hospital on August 1, 201 in order to treat the symptoms of the Hemb disc, and the same month.

2. During the process of performing high-frequency heat treatment surgery from Defendant B (hereinafter “instant surgery”), the heat line (electric power line) used in the instant surgery was cut, and the heat line of 2 meters in diameter and 3 cm in length left the disks inside the disc.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.

Since then, the Plaintiff received a surgery to remove heat remaining inside a disc from E hospital or F hospital on September 16, 201 and removed part of the heat line. D.

In addition, the Plaintiff is receiving hospital treatment and hospitalization at the E hospital, F hospital, Aju University Hospital, etc. due to blurgic pain.

【Fact-finding without a dispute over the grounds for recognition, entry of evidence of subparagraphs 1 through 36, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The parties’ assertion 1) Defendant B had the Plaintiff cut the heat line by negligence while performing the instant surgery, and did not provide appropriate treatment for the remaining heat lines inside the Plaintiff’s disc. In addition, Defendant B did not explain the fact that the heat line can be cut off in the event that the Plaintiff undergoes high-frequency heat treatment prior to the instant veterinary surgery, and that there may be a combination of salt certificates, etc.. caused by the negligence of Defendant B. As such, Defendant B, the user of Defendant B and B, is jointly and severally liable for compensation to the Plaintiff for damages caused by the instant accident. (2) The Defendants’ high-frequency heat treatment method is deemed to bear the duty of explanation of the Plaintiff B, as the case was where the heat line is cut during the surgery.