1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On March 21, 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) undergone an inspection at the hospital operated by the Defendant (hereinafter “Defendant hospital”); (b) was diagnosed as “heat scarlete scarlete scarlete scarfe scarfe scarfe scarfe scarfe scarfe scarfs”; and (c) was hospitalized at the Defendant hospital on March 24, 2014, and was hospitalized at the Defendant hospital on March 25, 2014 (hereinafter “instant operation”).

B. After the instant surgery, the Defendant hospital conducted the Plaintiff’s RoI’s inspection on March 31, 2014 and the ultra-frequency inspection on April 11, 2014, but no special error was found. The Plaintiff discharged the Plaintiff on April 12, 2014, when he worn “a tin roof,” respectively.

C. Since then, the Plaintiff received rehabilitation treatment by being hospitalized in or out of other medical institutions, such as E Hospital, F Council, MadI’s MadI’s MadI’s Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad 18, April 18, 2014, and June 18, 2014.

On July 25, 2014, the Plaintiff complained of the pain on July 25, 2014, and confirmed the re-spawn fever as a result of the MIM inspection on July 31, 2014.

Accordingly, on August 1, 2014, it refers to the power line to rescue a dump of flapsy in the above hospital.

Along with the operation of an Akyl-dried surgery using B (hereinafter referred to as “instant re-operation”).

E. The Plaintiff is suffering from symptoms of decrease in the sense of pedestrian disability and the outer side of a leged part due to the weakening of the current leged part of leged part of leged part of leged part of leged part of leged part of leged part of leged part of leged part of leged part of leged part of leged part of leged part of leged part of leged part of leged part of leged part of leged part of leged part

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 3, 5, and Eul evidence 1 to 7 (including each number), and it is against the director of the Department of Annual Generation of this Court and the director of the University Synish Hospital of this Court.