1. The Defendants jointly share KRW 10,000,000 with respect to the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from June 4, 2009 to November 11, 2015.

1. The content of the claim is that the Plaintiff received the Gap upper ray control from the defendant Eul under the Gap upper ray cancer diagnosis in the hub hospital operated by the defendant educational foundation's tobacco generation school (hereinafter "the defendant hospital"). Although at the time, the Plaintiff fell under the adaptation certificate for the Gap upper ray control, the defendant Eul arbitrarily performed only the Gap upper ray control, and the obligation to explain was not fulfilled properly.

Therefore, the defendants are liable to compensate for the plaintiff's damage (such as expenses for re-operation and consolation money) caused by incomplete performance of the medical treatment contract, violation of the duty to explain, or tort caused by intention or negligence.

2. Progress of the diagnosis and surgery for the plaintiff;

A. A. Around April 2009, the Plaintiff was diagnosed to have an organization of 1.2-1.3 cm in diameter on the upper upper line of the Plaintiff’s hospital located in Seoul, and was diagnosed to have a 1.19cm in diameter on the upper line of the right, as a result of the first-frequency and the spopic cell examination at the hospital located in Seoul. The Plaintiff was diagnosed to have a 1.19cm in diameter on the upper line of the Defendant hospital. In order to avoid exposure to the upper part of the Defendant hospital due to alcohol, the Plaintiff was diagnosed to have undergone an operation by the method of an operation to cut off the upper part of the Defendant hospital, not a wood, at the Defendant hospital. 2) In the first-wave test before the operation of the Defendant hospital or the CT test, the Plaintiff was diagnosed to have an organization of 1.2-1.3 cm in diameter on the upper line of the Plaintiff’s right, and there was no proof that there was no outcome of a neighboring organized crime by itself on the upper part of the Defendant hospital 10.

B. On June 4, 2009, Defendant B performed an operation at the Defendant Hospital, on June 4, 2009, an operation at the Defendant Hospital, with respect to the Plaintiff, the Defendant B performed an operation on the right side of the Plaintiff.

In the course of the operation, Defendant B was found to have confirmed the upper-party system with the land using robot vision, and there is no flexible opinion due to the development of the base system for surrounding land, long-term, and annual installments, and there is also a view to suspect the transfer of the forest.