1. The part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid under the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. On July 27, 2013, the Plaintiff was a married woman under the age of 43, and was transferred to an emergency room of the Defendant’s limited hospital (hereinafter “Defendant hospital”) where the Plaintiff had continued to do so for more than a week prior to July 27, 2013, and the clibs of the clibs, clibs, district character, etc. were serious.

B. The Plaintiff, without undergoing the pregnancy response test, was tried before and after the first medical treatment in an emergency room, and took part in the clothes CT, the meology of the meology, the meology of the meology, the meology of the meology, the meology of the meology, the meology of the meology, the meology of the meology, the meology of the Plaintiff was not improved.

On the other hand, the records of the emergency room of July 27, 2013 against the Plaintiff of the Defendant Hospital are recorded as “LMP. 27 July 2013, and re-use” as “HCG re-use box” in the nursing record book of July 27, 2013.

C. On August 1, 2013, the Plaintiff was discharged from the Defendant Hospital, and was determined to be the result of the pregnancy reaction test by transferring it to the emergency room of the Macheon-do University Hospital. On August 2, 2013, the Plaintiff was diagnosed as a dead ovum type, complete, or an unidentified incomplete heritage, and was immediately discharged from the hospital on August 12, 2013 after immediately undergoing her spathic surgery.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 6, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The doctor in charge of the emergency room belonging to the defendant hospital was a woman with a fixed term of office and applied to the emergency room when the plaintiff complained of symptoms, such as learning, clothes, pains, area quality, etc., and thus, he merely asked the plaintiff about whether pregnancy is pregnant or not even though he had a duty of care to conduct an examination on the possibility of pregnancy. This did not perform the duty of care required for the ordinary doctor and the duty of explanation on the pregnancy response test.

In addition, the internal medicine and doctor belonging to the defendant hospital are also the plaintiff, even in the case of internal medicine treatment pending from July 27, 2013 to August 1, 2013.