1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On July 26, 2016, the Plaintiff (C) complained of a chest, and was hospitalized in the Defendant Hospital on the same day by taking advantage of the first-aid vehicle, who was in the emergency room operated by the Defendant (hereinafter “Defendant Hospital”).

B. On August 8, 2016, the Plaintiff received from the medical personnel of the Defendant Hospital a fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral, fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral c

(hereinafter “instant surgery”). C.

The Plaintiff was diagnosed by the medical personnel of the Defendant Hospital with brain brain damage and the cerebral Dementia (the date of the disease, August 8, 2016).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, result of entrustment of medical record appraisal to the director of the E-Association Medical Appraisal Board of this Court, purport of whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's ground of claim

A. The medical personnel of the Defendant Hospital shall select appropriate methods of surgery in the course of treating the Plaintiff, ensure that the occurrence of unexpected erosion is not caused to the patient at the time of an emergency, and have the duty not to cause any other damage to the patient after the surgery.

The medical personnel of the Defendant Hospital caused the Plaintiff with the negligence of treating the Plaintiff in violation of the above duty of care due to the injury to the hystrophal brain and the hystrophal dementia.

Therefore, the defendant is the employer of the medical staff of the defendant hospital and is liable to the plaintiff for damages caused by tort.

B. At the time of the instant surgery, the medical personnel at Defendant Hospital did not explain to the Plaintiff on the side effects of her Hemal brain damage or shemical dementia, etc., and did not provide any adequate explanation after the surgery, so the medical personnel at the Defendant Hospital did not deprive the Plaintiff of the Plaintiff’s right of choice and right of self-determination.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for mental damage.

C. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s explicit partial claim to the Defendant, which is KRW 10 million out of the Plaintiff’s lost profit, and KRW 10 million out of the medical expenses, and KRW 10,000,100 of consolation money.