1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 2, 2009, the Plaintiff applied to the “C Hospital” operated by the Defendant (hereinafter “Defendant Hospital”) with the pain and right hyposis, and D, which is a doctor of the Defendant Hospital, diagnosed as the right hypoid, and conducted pharmacologic and physical therapy.

B. After that, D, for accurate diagnosis, was subject to the MI test on October 6, 2009 (hereinafter “instant test”).

C. On October 30, 2009, the Plaintiff received from E, a doctor of the Defendant hospital, an internal scopic copic scopic scopic scopic scopic surgery (hereinafter “instant primary surgery”).

On November 30, 2009, the Plaintiff received an operation to restore damaged human agents and improve their symptoms (hereinafter “instant secondary operation”).

E. On September 7, 2012, at the New Village Synish Hospital, the Plaintiff received either an in-depth and sacrific eculation, an in-depth and sacrific eculation, an in-depth and sacrific eculation, and a sacrific eculation (hereinafter “the third operation”).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 10 (including branch numbers, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The result of the instant inspection was read on November 23, 2009, after the date of the instant first operation, and the medical staff of the Defendant Hospital performed the instant first operation after checking the exact state of the right generation before the first operation of the instant medical personnel. However, D, which requested the instant inspection, did not notify E of the fact that the instant inspection was conducted. Ultimately, E was negligent in performing the instant first operation without verifying the result of the instant inspection.

B. The instant 1 and 2 surgery may be conducted simultaneously and may be conducted in succession. At the time of the instant 1 and 2 surgery, E was negligent in failing to explain such details, thereby preventing the Plaintiff from choosing the method of surgery.

C. At the time of the second operation of this case, the third operation of this case is to be conducted in Angoor.