1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Defendant B, at the D Hospital operated by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “Plaintiff Hospital”), was a person who received the surgery of antipathic gymosis from E, a medical specialist in the anesthesia pain medicine of the said hospital (hereinafter “the instant surgery”), and Defendant C is a joint and several surety for the Defendant B’s obligation to pay medical expenses.

B. From November 12, 2010, Defendant B received treatment at the Plaintiff Hospital as of November 12, 2010, Defendant B conducted the instant treatment against Defendant B on December 28, 2010, due to the increase of injection, and due to the increase of injection, Defendant B’s air and steering agents, etc. were introduced into brain divers.

C. On December 28, 2010, on the day of the instant procedure, Defendant B hospitalized in the Plaintiff Hospital and discharged on September 6, 2011. The medical expenses (total principal burden) for Defendant B’s hospital from December 28, 2010 to January 5, 201 are KRW 2,456,893, and the medical expenses (total principal burden) from January 6, 201 to September 6, 201 are KRW 21,392,698.

On November 28, 2012, Defendant B, on the part of the Plaintiff and E, injecting drugs, such as air, crypryp, etc., with the negligence of the E procedure, filed a lawsuit for damages claim against the Plaintiff and E by the Seoul Central District Court as the Seoul Central District Court 2012Gahap9902.

On June 24, 2014, while the instant medical treatment was conducted by E, the said court recognized the negligence that led to the occurrence of a tent and the introduction of air and steering agents into the scambling, etc. by mistakenly manipulating the scam and causing the scambling. While Defendant B recognized cambling and cambling as a malicious result caused by the Plaintiff hospital’s negligence in the course of the Plaintiff hospital’s medical professionals, the scambling of the scambling is not a malicious result caused by the negligence in the instant medical treatment, but it is recognized that the cambal damage caused the said consequence to Defendant B only by the evidence submitted.