The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

purport, purport, and.

Basic Facts

The defendant C is the doctor of the E Hospital located in Silti City D (hereinafter referred to as the “instant hospital”), and the defendant B is the person operating the said hospital, and the plaintiff is the patient who was performed by the defendant C at the instant hospital.

Before the Plaintiff’s establishment of the instant hospital, on October 21, 2010, the Plaintiff was diagnosed as “hump escape certificate of a conical signboard between the base, right shoulder, 4-5, 5-6, and 5-6.”

The plaintiff was hospitalized in G Hospital for at least 15 days from October 2010, received one week of outpatient treatment, and continued to receive outpatient treatment at I Hospital for 22 days.

On January 24, 2011, the Plaintiff complained of the following: (a) the Plaintiff was admitted to the instant hospital on January 24, 201; and (b) the Plaintiff complained of the backheading, the light fluoring, both sides of the instant hospital; (c) the fluoring of all descendants; (d) the fluoring of all descendants; and

Accordingly, on January 25, 2011, Defendant C recommended the Plaintiff to conduct an artificial disc transpact (TDR) and conducted a psychotropic examination to confirm the decline of the exercise ability on the right side of the Plaintiff hospitalized in the instant hospital, such as Lhermitt, Shermitt, Shermiting, and Round.

At around 10:00 on January 26, 201, Defendant C, based on the result of the above inspection, performed the following procedures: (a) the following procedures: (b) the method of removing drilling signboards and the artificial disc transshipment between 4-5-6 and 4-5, and C5-6; (c) the Plaintiff performed the first operation.

After the process of the second operation, the plaintiff constantly complained of the pains between the left-hand arche and the trees, including the pains of the bridge, the flusium and the flusium.

Accordingly, Defendant C recommended the Plaintiff to perform an Huri surgery while it is not good for MRI inspection, and recommended the Plaintiff to do so, around 11:00 on January 31, 201, Defendant C used Mariri-5 to perform Mariririririth surgery (block) and disc operation, and around 10:00 on February 7, 201.