1. All the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)’s claims on the principal lawsuit extended by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)’s appeal and the trial.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

Basic Facts

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as stated in Paragraph 1 of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the case where “gSC” in Section 20 of Section 8 of the judgment of the court of first instance is used as “gCS” and “gCS” in Section 20 of Section 8 of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The judgment on the claim of this lawsuit was negligent in taking the blood transfusion in the course of the first and second surgery of this case, and the medical personnel at the Defendant Hospital asserted that the Plaintiff was negligent in taking the blood transfusion in the course of the first surgery of this case, and thus, the Plaintiff’s blood transfusion continued before the second surgery of this case, and there was no record on the blood transfusion measures against the said Plaintiff after the second surgery of this case. Thus, it can be presumed that the medical personnel at the Defendant Hospital failed to take the blood transfusion measures against the said Plaintiff.

Judgment

In full view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, i.e., the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by taking account of the overall purport of the arguments on the evidence revealed earlier, i.e., (i) the result of brain CT conducted at the Defendant Hospital on August 20, 201 at the Defendant Hospital, referring to the opinion of “the eromatic typosis” and the medical record of the cerebral typosis No. 6 of the skin under the eromatic typosis diagnosis at the lower level. While the first operation of this case was conducted on August 23, 2011, the blood transfusion at the time of the Defendant Hospital was resolved because most of the blood transfusion at the time of the first operation and most of the cerebral typosis were the common opinions of the appraisers responding to the request for the medical record appraisal of the first instance court, it cannot be deemed that there was any additional blood transfusion at the time of the first operation at the Defendant Hospital (Seoul 1.2.00).