1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff A for consolation money of KRW 15,00,000, and KRW 5,000,000 to the Plaintiff B, respectively.

1. Basic facts

A. On December 17, 2009, Plaintiff A (D) was diagnosed as an extractive pyroopic pyocopic pyocopic pypy, which was conducted by an individual hospital in 2009, and received a medical examination from the general public of the Young-gu University Medical Center located in Daegu-gu operated by the Defendant Educational Foundation Young-gu (hereinafter “Defendant Hospital”).

On the other hand, Plaintiff B is the husband of Plaintiff A.

B. As a result of the examination of the Defendant Hospital, as the Plaintiff’s extraction is doubtful on the arctal part of the arctal part of the Plaintiff Hospital, the Plaintiff was hospitalized in the Defendant Hospital on January 13, 2010 in order to remove the arctal part.

C. On January 15, 2010, Defendant C, a doctor of the Defendant Hospital, performed an operation to dumpate dump dump dump dump dump dump dump dump dump dump dump dump dump dump dump dump

In the pre-operation test, the size of 2 x 3 cm from the surface surface of the plaintiff A was confirmed, and the defendant C performed an operation to cut off the surface surface of the plaintiff A, taking into account the booming beer and the surface of the beer and beer, which are being carried out on to the beer part of the beer part of the beer part of the beer part of the beer part of the beer part, and the running route of the beer and beer, etc. of the beer part of the beer part of the beer part of the beer part of the beer part of the beer part.

As a result of the organizational examination conducted after the surgery, the Defendant hospital confirmed that the arctal typhal typhal typhal typhal typhal typhal typhal typhalthal typhal typhal typhal typhal typhal typhal typhal of the Plaintiff, while continuing hospital treatment, found the Plaintiff A as being in the normal process of recovery, and discharged the Plaintiff on January 25, 201.

[Ground of recognition] No dispute, Gap's evidence 1 to 6, Eul's evidence 1, 2, and 4, the result of the commission of physical appraisal (Supplement), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiffs' assertion

A. Defendant C’s extraction of the Plaintiff’s vision while performing an dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium