The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

In full view of the adopted evidence, the lower court determined as follows: (a) pursuant to the examination conducted by the medical personnel affiliated with the Defendant on July 18, 201, the chest CT photographs conducted on July 19, 201, that it was determined that there was a high possibility of pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary shipment; (b) the result of the examination conducted on July 19, 2011 was determined to have been pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary 2.

The judgment below

In light of the records, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the doctor's duty of care or causation in medical practice or incomplete hearing, etc. which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Even if the medical personnel belonging to the defendant was negligent in performing pathology tests with the organization of another person, as long as the medical personnel belonging to the defendant did not err in the disease specified in B as small cell cancer.