1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff.

purport, purport, ..

1. The following facts, which have become final and conclusive in the judgment subject to review, are apparent in records or obvious to this court:

On March 11, 2014, the Plaintiff operating the hospital: (a) filed a lawsuit claiming for the payment of damages by asserting that, under the Cheongju District Court Decision 2014Gahap25495, Defendant Pail, the supplier of medical video information devices, Defendant Lail, the intermediate supplier of the data storage device, Defendant EVA 4400 (hereinafter “storage devices”) neglected to check and notify the situation of the back-to-date and free space; (b) the Plaintiff supplied defective goods, which are the manufacturer of the storage device of this case, and thus, caused the Plaintiff’s occurrence of an accident by discontinuinging the Plaintiff’s medical video service and removing part of the video data permanently.

On May 20, 2015, the said court rendered a judgment against the Plaintiff on the ground that the instant accident was caused by negligence that failed to secure sufficient backups and free space, and there was no evidence to prove that the Defendant Nitice or Defendant Laty was liable to check whether the instant accident occurred or not, and on the ground that the lack of securing space and free space, which is the cause of the instant accident, can not be deemed as the defect of the storage equipment supplied by the Defendant Bitk World, on the ground that it cannot be seen as the defect of the storage equipment of this case.

B. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Daejeon High Court (Cheongju), No. 2015Na10784, and the said court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal on January 12, 2016 (hereinafter “the subject judgment on review”).

C. On January 29, 2016, the judgment subject to a retrial was rendered on the ground that the Plaintiff did not file an appeal.