1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The defendant is a foundation that operates the C Hospital (hereinafter "the defendant hospital"), and the plaintiff is a person who undergoes the removal of brain sewage from the defendant hospital.

B. (1) On December 13, 2001, the Plaintiff was provided with the thring of brain sewage in the Defendant Hospital under the Contact Access Act. The Plaintiff did not visit the Defendant Hospital after the last outpatient treatment in 2005. (2) On August 9, 2016, the Plaintiff complained of the inconvenience that the Plaintiff would have been well aware of the right side of the road. (3) On December 13, 2001, the Plaintiff was admitted to the Defendant Hospital.

As a result of various examinations, such as brain RI, implemented at the Defendant Hospital on August 10, 2016, the Plaintiff was diagnosed as a result of a recurrence of brain sewage, and was hospitalized at the Defendant Hospital on August 24, 2016 for an operation.

According to the above MRI's opinion, it is observed that the results of pressure on the crypology of the crypology of the large-scale brain sewage (not less than 4 cm in diameter) from the crypology of the crypology of the crypology of the crypology of the crypology of the upper right, the hypology of the sea bed, and the s

At the time of hospitalization, the Plaintiff’s vision was measured by 0.3/0.15, and the result of face-to-face examination showed that there was a room to view the outside of both sides.

3) At around 11:00 on August 25, 2016, the medical personnel of the Defendant Hospital performed the removal of the brain sewage body under the Contact Access Act against the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the first operation”).

(4) On August 25, 2016, around 14:08, the first operation was completed, and the medical professionals at the Defendant hospital observed the euthanasia’s luminous base room, the euthanasia’s euthanasia, and the euthanasia’s euthanasia that do not string the light. On August 25, 2016, the medical professionals at the Defendant hospital re-entered the Plaintiff with the removal of euthanasia under the Myeongdong Access Act on August 25, 2016.

(hereinafter referred to as “the second surgery”) around 19:00 on August 25, 2016, the Plaintiff entered a hospital in the middle-patient. After completing the second surgery, the Plaintiff entered the hospital. There is no change after the first surgery and the first surgery in the state of euthanasy in the real name and euthanasy, and the coordinates are likely to become a luminous team.