1. The Defendants are jointly and severally and severally liable to the Plaintiff for 30,504,482 won and the period from December 11, 2015 to September 7, 2017.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendants are medical doctors operating “E” in Seo-gu Daejeon, Seo-gu, Daejeon, and the Plaintiff is a woman who was performed by the Defendants as follows.

B. The process of the instant surgery and the Plaintiff’s present symptoms 1) on December 11, 2015, the Plaintiff, from Defendant B, for the correction of internal sewage (hereinafter “the first surgery”).

(2) On December 18, 2015, Defendant B opened the left-hand body autopsy and carried out the second operation to adjust both fluories to the Plaintiff on the left-hand side.

3) The Plaintiff complained of symptoms, etc. that do not leave well the right eye after the second surgery. On December 30, 2015, Defendant B, at the direction of Defendant C, performed a three-dimensional surgery to transplant on the left side of the Plaintiff’s right eye (hereinafter “three-dimensional surgery”).

4) At present, the Plaintiff shows the symptoms showing a number of lusences in both sides of the lusence and lusence of both sides.

C. The relevant medical knowledge 1) An internal sewage is the phenomenon that the upper eye, the upper eye of which is applied by astronomical chronologically, is left below the upper eye of the upper eye. 2) In this case, in order to correct the Plaintiff’s internal sewage, the Defendants are presumed to have performed an operation by setting the inner eye of the upper eye, which is the inner eye that can string the eye in order to correct the Plaintiff’s internal sewage.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the result of the court's commission of physical examination to the director of the Daejeon Esaton Hospital, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. On the ground of liability, negligence medical practice on one procedure is an area requiring highly specialized knowledge, and is not an expert, whether a doctor has breached his/her duty of care in the course of medical practice, or a breach of his/her duty of care, and the occurrence of damages.