1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. Following a counterclaim filed by this Court.

1. The grounds for the court’s explanation on this part of the main claim and the Plaintiff’s argument on this part are as follows: (a) the 4th 13th son of the judgment of the court of first instance (hereinafter “the 5th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6

The plaintiff asserts that the court does not constitute an insurance accident for the payment of education fund for children with disability above 50% in accordance with the special terms and conditions of this case, since the defendant's restriction on both sides of the accident was not caused by disease, but for the prevention of infertility.

However, according to the fact-finding conducted by the first instance court on Samsung Seoul Hospital Head of the first instance court, there is no absolute standard for conducting the operation before the operation of this case, and therefore, it is reasonable to determine whether the operation of this case is implemented according to the medical judgment of the housebed, and therefore, it is reasonable to determine whether the operation of this case is implemented according to the medical judgment of the housebed, and there is no detailed technology about the part and degree of the riverbed, but there is no detailed technology about the part and degree around the two sides, so in light of this, it is considered that the operation of this case is determined according to the opinion of the doctor in charge of finding the part around the two sides during the operation of the defendant.