1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 25,00,000 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from June 14, 2011 to April 26, 2017; and (b) the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On February 2010, the Plaintiff’s implementation of the first thym wave at the Defendant Hospital was found to have a 4m degree degree on the left-hand side. On June 201, the Plaintiff was diagnosed to be suspected of the second stym cancer as a result of the Defendant Hospital’s re-implementation of the first stym wave at the Defendant Hospital. As a result, the size of the said stym is increased to at least 5m, and the Plaintiff was diagnosed to have a stymam cancer as a result of the stym

B. As a result of the organizational inspection, the doctor of the Defendant Hospital diagnosed that there was a fluoral cancer and a fluoral feculation on the upper uppermost line of the Plaintiff’s left side, and on June 13, 2011, the Plaintiff was under the Party C’s house at the Defendant Hospital, and was under the Party C’s house, subject to the instant surgery (hereinafter “instant surgery”).

C. Since then, the Plaintiff received medical treatment in relation to the above symptoms at the Gangnam Synan Hospital around October 201, via D non-humane surgery, etc., and received the diagnosis of sexual hemp plant cost and post-satison training from the Gangnam Syan Hospital from October 24, 201 to October 31, 201, and received hospitalized treatment at the Gangnam Syan Hospital from the Gangnam Synan Hospital from October 24, 201.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without a partial dispute, Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 2-1-2, Gap evidence 2-1-25, witness E's testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. C is a wram cancer on the left side line of the Plaintiff, and it is necessary to remove only the difference on the left side line, even though it is necessary to remove only the difference on the left side line, and as a result, it was caused by the negligence of cutting down the right-hand brale while the operation did not transfer to the Plaintiff, and therefore, the Defendant Hospital, the user of C, is liable to compensate for damages.

B. C did not perform its duty to explain any damage to the right-hand balves, even though it could immediately be done on the right-hand balves, before performing the Plaintiff’s surgery on cutting back the balves.

C. The fact that the Plaintiff suffered emotional distress due to the foregoing medical accident is the Plaintiff.