1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Basic Facts

The defendant medical corporation B (hereinafter referred to as "B") is a medical corporation that operates the E Hospital located in Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D (hereinafter referred to as "the instant hospital"), and the defendant C is the head of the instant hospital who is in charge of medical treatment as the plaintiff's principal doctor, and the plaintiff is a person who received medical treatment from the defendant C at the instant hospital from July 9, 2015 to July 28, 2015.

On July 9, 2015, at around 14:20 of the Plaintiff’s internal examination and diagnosis, the Plaintiff complained of the symptoms that the Plaintiff was difficult to carry out on the instant hospital, such as wood, blue, right arms and legs pain, both sides, 4, 5th hand, left 4, 5th hand, 5th hand, satis, satisfy, and leg. After the Plaintiff hospitalized the Plaintiff, the Defendant C conducted a test on the following day for the diagnosis, for the purpose of the diagnosis, X-ray test, X-ray test, satisfy test on the alley part, and CRI test on the satisfy part, for the following day, on July 10, 2015, and the CT test on the satus.

On July 10, 2015, Defendant C explained to the Plaintiff on July 10, 2015 that “As a result of each of the above inspection, there is a obstacle to the nephical and other conical signboards accompanied by the nephism, Defendant C performed light-based nephaloplaty (hereinafter “PEN surgery”) in the drilling for treatment, and provided the Plaintiff with the following explanation that the nephal ephal lephal ephal ephal ephal ephal ephal ephal ephal ephal ephal ephalty should be reconcepted and performed an operation on July 15, 2015.”

On July 10, 2015, the Plaintiff, at the instant hospital, was subject to PEN procedures at the Posium, and was discharged on July 11, 2015, after receiving from the Posium treatment, epidema treatment, rasca treatment, rasca treatment, and outpatient treatment due to preservation after the procedure.

On July 15, 2015, the Plaintiff re-entered to the instant hospital for the scopic surgery, and the Defendant C determined whether to conduct the surgery after receiving first the surgery and physical therapy, as the result of a meeting with other doctors based on the results of the examination, in the case of the scopic surgery, the scopic operation may be serious.

The plaintiff is the defendant C's.