1. The part against Plaintiff A in the judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff A 145,344,552.

1. Basic facts

A. The status of the parties A is a patient who was subject to the Plaintiff’s first-frequency test by the Defendant’s net astronomical Rawls Hospital (hereinafter “Defendant Hospital”), and the Plaintiff B is the wife of the Plaintiff, and the Defendant is an employer who employed the medical staff of the Defendant Hospital while operating the Defendant Hospital.

B. On March 2007, Plaintiff A’s medical personnel: (a) undergone a heart-mar surgery at the New Village Symnish Hospital; (b) took 5mmlidine, an air-conditioning agents for the scoomal, every day; and (c) undergone a scooma surgery and a scooma surgery at the part of the scoo; (d) however, during the period from July 22, 2003 to December 16, 2008, Plaintiff A suffered from diseases, such as scooditis, dyebrate, or mathitis, etc., of the following conditions.

C. On January 19, 200, the first hospitalization at the Defendant Hospital: (a) Plaintiff A complained of the dynasium and the dynasium on January 13, 2009; (b) was admitted to the Defendant Hospital; and (c) was admitted to the Defendant Hospital for 72 times per part of the physical temperature 36D, beer and beer, 130/70; and (d) was diagnosed with brain fynasium due to the cardiopulmonary disease, and hospitalized to the Defendant Hospital for the detailed inspection.

On January 19, 2009, the medical personnel at Defendant Hospital confirmed that Plaintiff A had a minor physical function of the heart wall and the function of reducing the depth room of the heart, through the heart test around 16:40 on January 19, 2009, and continued to verify whether he/she had a blood disorder, the medical personnel at the Defendant Hospital attempted to conduct a sclimatic test with the consent of Plaintiff A (hereinafter “instant sclimatic test”), but failed to conduct the sclimatic test due to the resistance due to the sclimatic quality of Plaintiff A.

The Defendant Hospital complained of the personality of the Plaintiff A through several times after the Defendant Hospital’s early test of this case, and thereafter appeal the personality of the Plaintiff even after the Defendant Hospital administered the personality control, but thereafter, and raised the A-ray test value on January 21, 2009. The e-mail and treatment around 16:40, and the e-mail and chest C of January 22, 2009.