1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On June 8, 2016, the Plaintiff complained of the right upper part of the hospital and was treated by the Defendant C by the outside of the Defendant hospital and the doctor of the Defendant hospital operated by the Defendant Educational Foundation B (hereinafter “Defendant hospital”).

On June 10, 2018, the Plaintiff was found to have a large number of fences on the ultra-frequency test conducted by the Defendant Hospital, and was hospitalized in the Defendant Hospital on June 19, 2016, and on June 20, 2016, the Plaintiff discharged the Plaintiff from the Defendant Hospital on June 22, 2016 after receiving a pyrodrocul reculing reculing from Defendant C.

B. On July 7, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Man-I (hereinafter “instant inspection”) of the Defendant Hospital from July 2, 2016 by visiting the Man-I (hereinafter “Man-I”) to the Man-I (hereinafter “Man-I”) and hospitalized the Man-I (hereinafter “the instant inspection”). On July 12, 2016, the medical personnel at the Defendant Hospital hospitalized the Man-I (hereinafter “the instant inspection”). The Plaintiff discharged the Plaintiff on July 20, 2016.

C. The Plaintiff continues to appeal for pedestrian disability from the beginning of July 2016 to the present day.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (which include each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. As a result of the examination in this case’s assertion of the cause of the Plaintiff’s claim, there was a opinion that the blood transfusion was unfilled on the parts of the Plaintiff’s 3,4, and 5 side of the Plaintiff’s main base (e.g., spawn spawn spawn spawn spawn) and there was a doubtful signal strength on the part of

However, the medical team of the defendant hospital omitted the diagnosis at the level of scarcity cryposis and scarcity cryposis, which is likely to cause the pedestrian disability, at the end, and did not take a chest MRI photograph.

Due to the negligence of omission by the medical staff of the Defendant Hospital, the Plaintiff lost the opportunity for prompt treatment of the pedestrian disability caused by the chronic pressure, thereby resulting in the failure to perform the same as the present medical care.

In addition, the defendant hospital.