The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

The plaintiff's claim extended by this court is dismissed.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 201, 2014, the Plaintiff was hospitalized in C Hospital due to symptoms of the right salving salivation, the Plaintiff was hospitalized in the 1stmath of the end of the year (the age of 33 years at that time) while moving to the bee of the bee of the bee of the bee of the bee of the bee of the bee of the bee of the bee of the bee of the bee of the bee of the bee of the bee of the bee of the bee of the bee of the bee of the bee of the bee of the bee of the bee of the bee of the bee of the bee of the bee of the bee of the bee of the bee of the bee of the front.

B. On January 5, 2015, the Plaintiff received outpatient medical treatment at a hospital where the Defendant, a medical specialist in negoical surgery, was working (hereinafter “Defendant hospital”) since the Plaintiff continued to show symptoms even after discharge.

On January 5, 2015, at the time of the first visit to Defendant Hospital on January 5, 2015, the Plaintiff was fleeped due to the lack of normal walking, and there was no power on the right bridge and there was symptoms of low on the left side bridge.

As a result of the CT and MRI test, the Defendant confirmed the Plaintiff’s “T and MRI test Nos. 3-4, 4-5, 5, 5, and 1, and 4-5, and decided to provide surgery treatment.”

C. On January 9, 2015, the Plaintiff hospitalized the Defendant Hospital, and the Defendant conducted the Plaintiff’s 3-4, 4-5, 5, 5, 1, 1, and 1, and 3-5, 5, 5, and 1, respectively.

(hereinafter referred to as “first operation”). D.

After the first operation, the plaintiff complained of the fact that the state of the plaintiff's failure to keep to the right, but the left-hand, and the result of the MRI inspection conducted the MRI inspection, which is suspected of having been conducted by the defendant, and the defendant carried out the diversary removal of the species and the conical removal of the side signboard No. 3-4 on January 10, 2015.

(hereinafter “Secondary surgery” and “each of the instant surgery” in combination with the first surgery. At the time of the second surgery, the Defendant observed several blood species at the time of the Plaintiff’s 3-4 times, and removed the 3-4 left side side-hand signboards at the 2nd surgery.

E. The Plaintiff did not have a sense in anus after the second surgery, and did not shotly dynasium and urology.