1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. On March 6, 2009, the Plaintiff was diagnosed with a part of a stop fever at a hospital operated by the Defendant medical corporation C (hereinafter the Defendant Foundation) (hereinafter the Defendant Hospital). On April 30, 2009, the Plaintiff was diagnosed with a part of a stop fever to the right, and was performed on April 30, 2009 by Defendant B, a doctor outside the stop surgery at the above hospital (hereinafter the instant operation).

Afterwards, the plaintiff is a structure of a back-to-side wing field, a shoulder-wing line around the right shoulder door, and consists of a extreme part of the head of the upper pelke in a stable manner of the pelke, extreme part of the pelke, pelke part, pelke part of the pelke, and small part of the pelke.

A. On December 19, 2009, the new village-related hospital was performing surgery, such as rewing rewing rewing rewing repact of the fluorical repact.

On the other hand, the plaintiff has a disability in the part of the right angle to the right angle (hereinafter the disability of this case).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 3

2. Determination

A. Defendant B’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion caused the instant disability to the Plaintiff due to the medical negligence as set forth below. As such, Defendant B and the Defendant Foundation, the employer thereof, are liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages incurred due to the instant disability.

(1) As the Defendant B did not appeal to the extent that the Plaintiff had to undergo the surgery, Defendant B performed the instant surgery without any need to undergo the surgery, and there was no problem in the movement of right shoulder, and thus, the instant surgery was conducted without any need to undergo the surgery.

The instant disability of medical malpractice in the instant surgery occurred after the Plaintiff underwent the instant surgery, and is consistent with the part of the surgery. Before the instant surgery, the Plaintiff did not have any restriction on the Plaintiff’s right shoulder movements, and the Plaintiff did not have any internal factors that are easily likely to cause the instant disability before and after the surgery, and the instant disability occurred after the surgery.