1. The judgment of the first instance court, including a claim extended and reduced in the trial, shall be modified as follows:

The defendant.

The court's explanation of this case is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the parts added or used as follows. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Supplementary or dismissed parts] The 12th 12th 12th 12th 12th 12th 70% of the phrase "to be limited to 70% (the defendant asserts the defendant's limitation of liability based on the plaintiffs' king evidence as a result of fact-finding on the Seoul Head of Seoul Regional Headquarters of the National Health Insurance Corporation, but since the above king was considered as having contributed to the expansion of the plaintiffs' property damage, the defendant's additional limitation of liability ratio should not be limited on the ground of the above circumstances asserted by the defendant)."

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion of nonperformance and tort liability against the Plaintiffs, medical personnel provided a medical practice in violation of the Medical Service Act (see Article 2(a)).

Even if such act does not constitute a violation of the duty of care in the medical treatment in question, so long as a violation of the specific duty of care in the medical treatment in question is not recognized, it does not lead to tort liability (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Da36945, Oct. 11, 2002). Thus, Articles 27(1) and 27(1) of the Medical Service Act (Prohibition of Unlicensed Medical Practice, etc.) of the Defendant is prohibited from engaging in any medical practice other than those licensed.

Article 22 (3) and 22 of the Medical Service Act (Medical Records, etc.) (3) No medical person shall prepare false medical records, etc. or make additional entry or revision differently from the fact, in violation of the above provision.