1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

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

purport, purport, and.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which cited the case, is that part of the judgment of the court of first instance is dismissed, and that part of the judgment of the court of first instance emphasized or added by the plaintiff in this court, except for the addition of the following "2. Additional Judgment", is the same as the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is acceptable

In the same part, the judgment of the court of first instance No. 2-1, (3) and 3-1.

1) To delete both paragraphs 3 and 3.

At the first day for pleading of the trial, the Plaintiff withdrawn all the allegations of negligence against the medical professionals in the Defendant Hospital, which fall under the above part.

2. According to the result of the dental monitoring during the surgery, the medical personnel at the Defendant Hospital asserted that there was negligence by forcibly performing the said surgery and expanding damages to the Plaintiff, despite the Plaintiff’s damage to the Plaintiff’s scale during the instant secondary surgery, the evidence alone submitted by the Plaintiff was damaged by the medical personnel at the Defendant Hospital’s negligence during the instant secondary surgery.

In addition, it is not sufficient to recognize that the defendant hospital caused damages to the plaintiff due to the negligence of the medical personnel of the defendant hospital, even though the plaintiff's gymal damage was caused by the plaintiff's gymal damage, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it

Rather, the following circumstances revealed by the evidence as seen earlier, i.e., heat damage caused by towing, damage caused by towing, and damage to light view by an operation during the instant secondary surgery, etc., the Plaintiff appears to have shown severe scale colonies due to pelinosis before the instant secondary surgery, and even when the instant secondary surgery was conducted due to a long-term rapid shock, the Plaintiff was in progress, and even when the instant secondary surgery was conducted with normal pressure due to a large number of occasions, and caused a sudden increase in location and loss of its existing function due to a problem in blood supply.