1. Defendant C and D jointly share KRW 66,420,228 to the Plaintiff, as well as the year from December 20, 2014 to August 22, 2018.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. (1) On December 11, 2014, the Plaintiff was hospitalized in an emergency room of a F Hospital located in E at the time of medical examination, after having been placed in the top in the right to the right side of the Plaintiff. (2) Defendant B was a doctor in charge of an emergency room at the time of the Plaintiff’s entrance into the said hospital, and Defendant C was a doctor in charge of an operation to the Plaintiff as a doctor, and Defendant C was a doctor in charge of an operation to the Plaintiff.

On the other hand, the above hospital has 300 beds and 12 medical departments, and it is a general hospital with two or more medical specialists for each medical department, and Defendant D, a medical specialist outside the relevant hospital, is the head of the relevant hospital.

B. At around 22:20 on December 11, 2014, the Plaintiff entered the upper part of the right side of the hospital, and applied to the emergency room of the hospital. Defendant B diagnosed the Plaintiff’s upper part of the hospital as “a open upper part of the bridge” and provided first aid, the above upper part of the hospital was deemed to be deep and to be damaged, and immediately hospitalized. 2) On December 12, 2012, the following day of the hospital, the Plaintiff complained of the pain on the right side of the bridge, and accordingly, the medical personnel of the hospital was in charge of the medical personnel, as the Plaintiff complained of the pain on the right side of the bridge.

At around 09:00 on the same day, Defendant C, a principal doctor, carried out felling of the Plaintiff’s upper part of the body (hereinafter “instant surgery”).

However, even after the instant surgery, the Plaintiff continuously complained of the pain of the surgery division.

3) During the period of December 13, 198, the Plaintiff had been faced with an advanced control three times on three occasions on the same year. However, the Plaintiff continued to appeal against the advanced control that the pain did not have been mitigated. The Plaintiff was faced with an advanced control once again due to the symptoms of an operation conducted on December 14, 1999 (e.g., the advanced control was three times).

Nevertheless, the Plaintiff’s pain was not mitigated, and around 19:20 on the same day, the Plaintiff’s corrosion occurred on the part of the Plaintiff’s surgery, and the Plaintiff complained of the Plaintiff’s embarrasses.

The plaintiff.