1. The Defendants: (a) KRW 5 million to each of the Plaintiff; (b) 5% per annum from November 15, 2014 to January 20, 2017; and (c).

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Defendant B is a person who operates the “Evalescent Hospital” in the Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D Building (hereinafter “instant convalescent Hospital”), and the Plaintiff (F) is a person who was hospitalized in the instant convalescent hospital from July 9, 201 to December 2015, as his own disease patient.

Defendant C is a nursing worker who was dispatched to the instant convalescent hospital through the placement service for the Korean Nursing Service and provided the Plaintiff, etc. with care.

B. The Plaintiff paid the hospital expenses of KRW 400,00 per month to the instant convalescent hospital, and remitted the nursing expenses of KRW 700,000 per month to the account designated by the instant convalescent hospital, and did not directly pay the nursing expenses to Defendant C.

C. Around 15:00 on November 15, 2014, Defendant C brought an accident where the left-hand side of the Plaintiff did not go to the Plaintiff’s bath for bathing the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant accident”) due to a shock between the diverse and the diverse (hereinafter “instant accident”).

The Plaintiff suffered injuries, such as the closure frame on the left-hand side part of the instant accident, spelke, etc.

Defendant C had talked on the date of the instant accident, but, on the ground that the Plaintiff was at ordinary times, the Plaintiff was at ordinary times, and thus was at the place of taxing to the tax base of the match, and around November 27, 2014, he discovered a hole while the Plaintiff was at the time of the instant accident and reported it to the nursing room.

The instant convalescent was phoneed to the Plaintiff’s children on the same day, and became aware of the Plaintiff’s frame.

E. Since then, the Plaintiff is receiving a preserved treatment by fixing a capital.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 3, Gap evidence 5, Gap evidence 6, Gap evidence 11, Gap evidence 12, Eul evidence 12, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. According to the overall purport of the arguments and arguments, (1) evidence Nos. 6 and 13 of the Plaintiff’s liability for damages, the Plaintiff has a disability due to dementia caused by Teinson’s disease, Almatz’s disease, and Almatz’s disease, and assistance from others.