1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On August 31, 2010, the Plaintiff was diagnosed on several occasions as follows: (a) the Plaintiff was placed at the right shoulder and the arms’s pain; (b) the Defendant was under the Defendant’s management and inspection throughout the outpatients treatment; and (c) the Plaintiff was under the diagnosis of the “FFFFR No. 5-6, 5-6,” and was discharged on March 31, 201 (hereinafter “the instant surgery”). (d) the Plaintiff was discharged on April 4, 2011.

B. On December 11, 201, the Plaintiff re-hospitalized the Plaintiff to undergo an additional examination and undergo an inspection on the left-hand leto-hand letos, as it continued pain after discharge. On October 17, 2012, the Plaintiff received medical treatment through outpatients and hospitalization, including discharge on October 27, 2012.

C. After that, on March 10, 2013, the Plaintiff was admitted to the Busan National University Hospital with the diagnosis of “Gyeong 5/6/7 conical signboard escape certificate, and light fluoring,” and was discharged on March 11, 2013 from the hospital on March 27, 2013, following the Plaintiff’s “elimination of metal for fixing the verte invertebrates after the verte body, post-cluoration of cluorical diameter, and anti-cluorical re-operation (hereinafter “instant re-operation”).

After the re-operation of the instant case, the Plaintiff had a pain.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 5 to 12, Gap evidence 20, Eul evidence 1 to 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion medical personnel of the Defendant Hospital performed the instant surgery without prior preparation.

At the time of the instant surgery, the medical personnel at the Busan National University Hospital performed the instant re-operation to remove the metals fixed at the rear bank at the time of the instant surgery, and at the time of the instant surgery, there was negligence on the medical personnel at the Defendant Hospital in charge of the instant surgery

(A) In addition, even though the Plaintiff continued to appeal to the medical staff of the Defendant Hospital, the medical staff of the Defendant Hospital silented the Plaintiff’s appeal to the pain.

These attitudes of the Defendant Hospital are good.