1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On November 17, 2009, the Plaintiff, who was admitted to the Csanbu and the Defendant’s Csanbu (hereinafter “Defendant hospital”), was subject to regular medical examinations, such as the denial of trademark rights and the patrial cancer and the patrial cancer (hereinafter “instant medical examination”).

B. During the examination process of the instant case, there were symptoms, such as sapapap, sap, joints, pains, etc. of the Plaintiff’s body, the Defendant implemented spawn filming, and the following results were normal outside of spawn.

(c) Stokes refer to cases where the density of wire organizations or fibers is high, among those which form oil embankments, and in particular, Korean women can be seen as proneing.

Emulsion is generated at the same place as the wire organization, and, in the case of spawn oil, it can be easily seen as wing change, fiber type, papering type, etc. to the wire organization and fibers even if the spawn photographs are carried out in the case of spawn, and thus, it is ordinarily recommended to inspect spawnosis by complementary measures.

The Defendant’s employees called the Plaintiff’s Handphone to inform the Plaintiff of the results of the instant medical examination and to encourage the Plaintiff to conduct the examination, but did not contact the Plaintiff with the wind to mislead the phone numbers on the examination documents.

E. Around August 11, 2011, the Plaintiff was diagnosed with flacing the cirrosis and flacing in the course of a regular examination conducted at another hospital (secondly, the Plaintiff received a flacing operation of the flacing of the flac and an operation of the flacing of the flacing of the flac.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1-6 evidence, defendant's results of the examination, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the medical examination of this case revealed that there was an opinion that the Plaintiff was provokinged against. In such a case, the Defendant should notify the Plaintiff of the result and encourage the Plaintiff to undergo the examination, but the Defendant neglected to do so and lost the opportunity for the Plaintiff to receive treatment of provoking and had the Plaintiff undergo an operation for provokinging.

The defendant.